the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Jul 2025
Soil health approaches to assess the impacts of no-tillage with agricultural terraces in southern Brazil
Abstract. Soil health assessment depends on the appropriate selection of indicators and robust, sensitive methods for its determination. In this study, four integrative approaches were evaluated to assess the impacts of no-till with and without agricultural terraces on soil health in Southern Brazil. The different methods used were: (1) Principal Component Analysis (PCA); (2) expert opinion (EO); (2) FERTBIO; and (4) Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF). All approaches followed four steps: (i) selection of indicators; (ii) interpretation of indicators; (iii) integration of indicators; and (iv) calculation of soil health indices. The methods varied in the steps of indicator selection, interpretation, and the method of indicator integration. The indicators used included physical (bulk density, total porosity, soil penetration resistance, and water retention capacity), chemical (pH, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, organic matter, CEC, and base saturation), and biological indicators (microbial biomass carbon, β-glucosidase, and arylsulfatase). Crop yield was evaluated for maize (2019/20 and 2021/22 harvests), wheat (2021 harvest), and soybean (2020/21 harvest). Descriptive statistics, median comparisons, principal component analysis and spearman correlation analysis were applied for the analysis of results. The results showed that only the EO and FERTBIO approaches were sensitive enough to detect differences in soil health between management systems, indicating that no-till with terraces had better soil health. Biological indicators were more sensitive in differentiating treatments, showing a rapid response in the short term. Maize (2019/20 harvest) and wheat (2021 harvest) yields were higher under the no-till with terraces treatment. Over time, yield showed a stronger relationship with soil health. The results highlight the importance of selecting appropriate indicators for soil health assessment and reinforce the benefits of agricultural terracing for the sustainability of production systems.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1123 KB)
-
Supplement
(200 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1123 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(200 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2583', Zakir Hussain, 08 Nov 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ariane de Paula, 23 Jan 2026
Prezado Senhor,
Agradecemos sinceramente ao revisor pela leitura atenta do manuscrito e pelas sugestões construtivas.
Anexamos nossas respostas detalhadas às revisões realizadas, nas quais abordamos e incorporamos todos os comentários e sugestões.Agradeço sua atenção e consideração.
Atenciosamente,
Ariane Lentice de Paula
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ariane de Paula, 23 Jan 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2583', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Dec 2025
General Comments:
This manuscript presents a thorough investigation of four different soil health assessment methods applied to agricultural Sandy Clay Loam soils under no-tillage (NT) and terraced no-tillage (NT+T) systems. The study addresses a highly relevant topic, and the statistical framework appears robust and well-executed.
However, to my opinion, the manuscript currently suffers from a lack of focus regarding its primary objective. It oscillates between evaluating management impacts and comparing assessment methodologies. I recommend the following major revisions:
Clarify the Primary Objective: If the main goal is to evaluate the impact of terracing on soil health, the current discussion is insufficient. The differences between NT and NT+T are inconsistent across the study years and this should be deeply discussed. The authors should provide a deeper discussion on the physical, chemical, and biological drivers behind these specific results.
Methodological Focus: If the "heart" of the paper is actually the comparison of the four assessment methods—which seems to be the case given the strength of the statistical analysis—this should be explicitly stated in the title, introduction, and conclusions.
Broaden the Discussion: The authors should expand on the practical application of these methods. How applicable are these indices to other soil types or geographical regions? A discussion on the scalability for farmers and other researchers would significantly increase the paper's impact.
Specific Comments:
P2, L49: Please define ‘FERTBIO’. Is this an acronym or a specific program? Please cite the developer or governing body.
P2, L60: Please specify the crop rotation or specific crops used in the no-till system.
P3, L65: Please clarify the term “tropical agriculture.”
P3, L71: Define the SHI abbreviation at its first mention (e.g., Soil Health Indicators).
P4, L95: Please state whether any irrigation was implemented or if the study was strictly rain-fed.
P4, L99: Clarify if “field capacity” refers specifically to volumetric water content at field capacity.
P5, L105: I note SHI is defined here as “Soil Health Indices.” As mentioned above, please ensure this is defined at the first usage in Line 71.
P5, L120: Please correct the citation formatting: "...proposed by Andrews et al. (2004), Stott et al. (2010), and Wienhold et al. (2009) were selected."
P7, L134: In the table, please define what “A” represents in the context of your data categories.
Summary:
The paper is well-organized and the statistical depth is impressive. However, the manuscript requires a more cohesive narrative and a clearer definition of its contributions to the field. I recommend publication only after these structural and clarifying comments have been addressed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2583-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ariane de Paula, 23 Jan 2026
Respected Sir,
Thank you for your careful review and constructive comments. Please find attached our detailed responses to the revisions made. All suggestions have been addressed in the revised manuscript, and all line numbers cited refer to the revised version.
Sincerely,
Ariane Lentice de Paula
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ariane de Paula, 23 Jan 2026
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2583', Zakir Hussain, 08 Nov 2025
General Comments
This manuscript presents a well-designed and executed study comparing four different integrative approaches (PCA, Expert Opinion, FERTBIO, and SMAF) for assessing soil health in no-till systems with and without agricultural terraces in Southern Brazil. The research addresses a highly relevant topic in sustainable soil management, particularly in the context of tropical agriculture and the need for effective conservation practices beyond no-till alone. The experimental design is robust, with a high number of replicates and multi-year monitoring, which strengthens the findings. The primary strength of the paper is its practical, comparative analysis of established methodologies, providing valuable insights into their sensitivity and applicability for detecting short-term management effects. The finding that biological indicators are the most sensitive and that the Expert Opinion and FERTBIO approaches were most effective in this context is a significant and useful contribution. The manuscript is generally well-written and the data support the conclusions. However, the novelty of the study is more in the comparative application of these methods in a specific, important agro-ecosystem rather than in the introduction of a fundamentally new concept. Some aspects, particularly the framing of the study's novelty and the discussion of limitations, could be strengthened to enhance the manuscript's impact.
Specific Comments
Novelty: The introduction should more clearly state the specific knowledge gap: a direct, comparative evaluation of the sensitivity of these established methods for detecting short-term impacts of conservation practices like terracing.
Methods Clarification: The description of the Expert Opinion (EO) method requires clarification. Specify if the initial indicator selection was purely based on expertise, while only the weighting was data-derived, to avoid a circular argument.
Conclusions: The conclusion that SMAF and PCA were "not sensitive" is too strong. A more nuanced statement is warranted, reflecting that EO and FERTBIO were the most sensitive in this specific context.
Technical Corrections
Line 65: "its effects on soil health" to "their effects on soil health" (referring to terracing combined with no-till).
Line 325: " A) Maize - 2019/20 Haverst, " to “harvest" (typo).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2583-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ariane de Paula, 23 Jan 2026
Prezado Senhor,
Agradecemos sinceramente ao revisor pela leitura atenta do manuscrito e pelas sugestões construtivas.
Anexamos nossas respostas detalhadas às revisões realizadas, nas quais abordamos e incorporamos todos os comentários e sugestões.Agradeço sua atenção e consideração.
Atenciosamente,
Ariane Lentice de Paula
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ariane de Paula, 23 Jan 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2583', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Dec 2025
General Comments:
This manuscript presents a thorough investigation of four different soil health assessment methods applied to agricultural Sandy Clay Loam soils under no-tillage (NT) and terraced no-tillage (NT+T) systems. The study addresses a highly relevant topic, and the statistical framework appears robust and well-executed.
However, to my opinion, the manuscript currently suffers from a lack of focus regarding its primary objective. It oscillates between evaluating management impacts and comparing assessment methodologies. I recommend the following major revisions:
Clarify the Primary Objective: If the main goal is to evaluate the impact of terracing on soil health, the current discussion is insufficient. The differences between NT and NT+T are inconsistent across the study years and this should be deeply discussed. The authors should provide a deeper discussion on the physical, chemical, and biological drivers behind these specific results.
Methodological Focus: If the "heart" of the paper is actually the comparison of the four assessment methods—which seems to be the case given the strength of the statistical analysis—this should be explicitly stated in the title, introduction, and conclusions.
Broaden the Discussion: The authors should expand on the practical application of these methods. How applicable are these indices to other soil types or geographical regions? A discussion on the scalability for farmers and other researchers would significantly increase the paper's impact.
Specific Comments:
P2, L49: Please define ‘FERTBIO’. Is this an acronym or a specific program? Please cite the developer or governing body.
P2, L60: Please specify the crop rotation or specific crops used in the no-till system.
P3, L65: Please clarify the term “tropical agriculture.”
P3, L71: Define the SHI abbreviation at its first mention (e.g., Soil Health Indicators).
P4, L95: Please state whether any irrigation was implemented or if the study was strictly rain-fed.
P4, L99: Clarify if “field capacity” refers specifically to volumetric water content at field capacity.
P5, L105: I note SHI is defined here as “Soil Health Indices.” As mentioned above, please ensure this is defined at the first usage in Line 71.
P5, L120: Please correct the citation formatting: "...proposed by Andrews et al. (2004), Stott et al. (2010), and Wienhold et al. (2009) were selected."
P7, L134: In the table, please define what “A” represents in the context of your data categories.
Summary:
The paper is well-organized and the statistical depth is impressive. However, the manuscript requires a more cohesive narrative and a clearer definition of its contributions to the field. I recommend publication only after these structural and clarifying comments have been addressed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2583-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ariane de Paula, 23 Jan 2026
Respected Sir,
Thank you for your careful review and constructive comments. Please find attached our detailed responses to the revisions made. All suggestions have been addressed in the revised manuscript, and all line numbers cited refer to the revised version.
Sincerely,
Ariane Lentice de Paula
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ariane de Paula, 23 Jan 2026
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,436 | 408 | 81 | 2,925 | 156 | 75 | 117 |
- HTML: 2,436
- PDF: 408
- XML: 81
- Total: 2,925
- Supplement: 156
- BibTeX: 75
- EndNote: 117
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Ariane Lentice de Paula
Luis Miguel Schiebelbein
Regiane Kazmierczak Becker
Eduardo Augusto Agnellos Barbosa
Fabrício Tondello Barbosa
Carolina Weigert Galvão
Rafael Mazer Etto
Heverton Fernando Melo
Adriel Ferreira da Fonseca
Neyde Fabiola Balarezo Giarola
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1123 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(200 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
General Comments
This manuscript presents a well-designed and executed study comparing four different integrative approaches (PCA, Expert Opinion, FERTBIO, and SMAF) for assessing soil health in no-till systems with and without agricultural terraces in Southern Brazil. The research addresses a highly relevant topic in sustainable soil management, particularly in the context of tropical agriculture and the need for effective conservation practices beyond no-till alone. The experimental design is robust, with a high number of replicates and multi-year monitoring, which strengthens the findings. The primary strength of the paper is its practical, comparative analysis of established methodologies, providing valuable insights into their sensitivity and applicability for detecting short-term management effects. The finding that biological indicators are the most sensitive and that the Expert Opinion and FERTBIO approaches were most effective in this context is a significant and useful contribution. The manuscript is generally well-written and the data support the conclusions. However, the novelty of the study is more in the comparative application of these methods in a specific, important agro-ecosystem rather than in the introduction of a fundamentally new concept. Some aspects, particularly the framing of the study's novelty and the discussion of limitations, could be strengthened to enhance the manuscript's impact.
Specific Comments
Novelty: The introduction should more clearly state the specific knowledge gap: a direct, comparative evaluation of the sensitivity of these established methods for detecting short-term impacts of conservation practices like terracing.
Methods Clarification: The description of the Expert Opinion (EO) method requires clarification. Specify if the initial indicator selection was purely based on expertise, while only the weighting was data-derived, to avoid a circular argument.
Conclusions: The conclusion that SMAF and PCA were "not sensitive" is too strong. A more nuanced statement is warranted, reflecting that EO and FERTBIO were the most sensitive in this specific context.
Technical Corrections
Line 65: "its effects on soil health" to "their effects on soil health" (referring to terracing combined with no-till).
Line 325: " A) Maize - 2019/20 Haverst, " to “harvest" (typo).