the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Jan 2026
Soil quality dynamics across a landslide profile from intact slopes to displaced material and bedrock
Abstract. Landslides modify soil systems by disrupting pedogenic processes, altering physical structure, and redistributing chemical constituents. To assess these effects and address key knowledge gaps, this study examines soil quality dynamics along a geomorphological transect crossing intact slopes, displaced landslide material, and parent substrate in the Transylvanian Basin. A suite of physico-chemical, together with magnetic parameters, considered herein as a previously underutilized yet promising proxy for soil degradation, was analysed to identify the soil properties most affected by landsliding, test for statistically significant contrasts between disturbed and undisturbed soils, and determine the most reliable indicators of soil degradation. Magnetic properties showed the clearest diagnostic response: mass-specific and frequency-dependent susceptibility were markedly reduced within the landslide, reflecting the removal or mixing of magnetically enriched horizons. Landslide-affected soils exhibited higher bulk density, lower organic matter, elevated electrical conductivity, and homogenized clay patterns compared with intact profiles. These results demonstrate that landslides profoundly alter soil composition and structure, and highlight magnetic susceptibility, organic matter, and electrical conductivity as robust indicators for assessing disturbance severity. The findings provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating soil degradation in landslide-prone environments.
- Preprint
(1012 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6303', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Feb 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ramona Bălc, 27 Feb 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement.
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Feb 2026
Thank you for taking my comments and suggestions into consideration. However, I do not currently have access to the revised version of the document.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6303-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ramona Bălc, 28 Feb 2026
Thank you very much for your follow-up and for your helpful comments and suggestions. I appreciate your thorough review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6303-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ramona Bălc, 28 Feb 2026
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Feb 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ramona Bălc, 27 Feb 2026
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6303', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jun 2026
Title: "Soil quality dynamics across a landslide profile from intact slopes to displaced material and bedrock"
General Assessment
The article by Roșian et al. investigates soil quality dynamics across a complete landslide profile in Transylvanian Basin, integrating physical, physio-chemical, and magnetic soil properties. The study compares intact soils, displaced landslide material, and exposed parent material to identify indicators of soil degradation associated with landslide processes,
The manuscript presents a valuable dataset and demonstrates considerable field effort. The integration of multiple soil indicators provides useful information regarding the consequences of mass movement on soil functioning. The paper is generally well structured, and the objectives are clearly stated. The results contribute to the growing body of literature examining how geomorphic disturbances influence soil quality and landscape evolution.
However, several aspects of the manuscript require improvement before publication. In particular, the discussion could better connect the findings to broader pedological and geomorphological theory. Some conclusions appear stronger than the available evidence supports, and additional clarification of methodological decisions would improve reproducibility.
Overall, I believe the manuscript has merit and can become a useful contribution after substantial revision.
Introduction
The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of landslide impacts on soils. However, several sections are descriptive and could be condensed.
L 25 is not a good sentence structure.
Some paragraphs reviewing previous studies are repetitive.
The research gap should be stated more explicitly near the end of the introduction.
The objectives are clearly stated.
The hypothesis should be rewritten in a more formal style.
Methodology
The study area description is adequate. Please provide additional details regarding the following aspects: sampling strategy; criteria used to select sampling points; measures taken to minimize sampling bias and quality assurance procedures for laboratory analyses. These details are important for reproducibility.
The authors acknowledge several limitations, but these deserve a more critical discussion. Important questions could be answered:
- Why were only two transects selected?
- How representative are they of the entire landslide?
- Were sampling locations selected randomly or subjectively?
- Could micro-topography influence the observed trends?
Because landslide deposits are highly heterogeneous, spatial variability is a major issue.
Results and Analysis
The results are clearly presented and generally easy to follow. However, several sections repeat information already visible in tables and figures. Consider focusing on the most important trends rather than describing every numerical difference. Greater emphasis should be placed on effect sizes rather than only statistical significance.
Discussion
The discussion should move beyond description and provide more mechanistic explanations. In particular:
- What processes explain the observed differences among geomorphic positions?
- How does material displacement alter soil-forming factors?
- What role do erosion and deposition play in shaping the observed patterns?
Linking the results to established soil formation concepts would substantially strengthen the discussion.
Conclusion
The conclusions are generally supported by the data. However, some statements appear broader than the scope of the study. The conclusions should emphasize that findings are based on a specific landslide system and may not necessarily apply to all environments.
Future research directions should also be suggested.
Technical Comments
- Several sentences are unnecessarily long and should be simplified (e.g., L25)
- Abbreviations should be defined at first use.
- Ensure consistency in units throughout the manuscript.
- Verify that all figures are readable when printed at journal scale ( Fig 2)
Table
Table 1 is useful but extremely large. Consider moving complete datasets to supplementary material and presenting summary statistics in the main manuscript.
Language
Overall English is understandable. However, numerous grammatical issues remain. Examples:
L -30 soil quality respond,
L -63 Hypothesized that,
L-64 displace material
L-135 Despite of all these
Professional English editing is recommended before publication.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,179 | 873 | 121 | 2,173 | 91 | 137 |
- HTML: 1,179
- PDF: 873
- XML: 121
- Total: 2,173
- BibTeX: 91
- EndNote: 137
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments
The manuscript presents an interesting characterization of landslide effects on soil properties. The limitations of the study are clearly and appropriately described in the methodology section.
Regarding the methodology, I suggest including data from forested or protected areas as reference sites to compare soil quality against a more stable and well-defined reference condition, or alternatively, using appropriate reference data from the literature.
The statistical analysis is very basic, relying solely on a one-factor ANOVA. Given the limited number of soil properties, applying multivariate analyses such as PCA or clustering may be challenging; however, the authors could explore alternative statistical approaches to strengthen the interpretation of the results.
The discussion section requires revision, as it is currently more theoretical than directly supported by the presented data. For example, in the statement “Bulk density emerged as a particularly robust indicator, with higher values consistently recorded in degraded or landslide-affected areas. High values of bulk density indicate compaction due to mechanical disturbance, sediment displacement, or livestock trampling.”contribution of livestock trampling is introduced without supporting evidence from this study. The authors should clarify whether animal-induced compaction can reasonably be considered comparable to landslide-induced compaction in this context, or restrict the interpretation to processes directly supported by their data.
Specific comments