the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Post-Disturbance Soil Monitoring in Forests using Remote Sensing: An Evidence Map
Abstract. Forest soils underpin ecosystem resilience and productivity but are increasingly threatened by natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Monitoring post‑disturbance soil degradation at operational scales remains challenging in forests, where ground‑signal obstruction and reliance on proxy indicators constrain remote sensing (RS) applications. To identify where RS can benefit soil monitoring and support emerging reporting needs, we developed a structured evidence map of studies assessing post‑disturbance forest soil degradation using RS methods. From 4,338 records, 72 primary studies were synthesized across disturbance types, biomes, platforms, scales, and indicators. The evidence base is dominated by wildfire and harvesting, reflecting disturbance pathways that produce observable surface impacts. Multispectral satellite data remain the primary tool for mapping post‑fire severity and erosion‑related indicators, while LiDAR and stereo‑photogrammetry are most often used to quantify surface deformation after harvest operations. Indicators tied to subsurface physical, chemical, or biological change remain sparsely represented due to observability limits. Overall, RS is most effective for mapping disturbance footprints, detecting surface‑expressed indicators, and stratifying landscapes for targeted field assessment, rather than directly measuring soil properties. This evidence map clarifies the benefits and limits of RS, identifies persistent gaps, and highlights priorities for developing disturbance‑aware soil‑monitoring frameworks. It also specifies which soil indicators are defensibly observable with RS and which require complementary approaches. By linking disturbance processes to observable indicators, this synthesis helps define realistic RS‑supported objectives for reporting frameworks within national forest monitoring and assessment programs.
- Preprint
(2021 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Jul 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1722', Mark Kimsey, 09 Jun 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1722', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Jun 2026
reply
The manuscript deals with an interesting topic and it is in line with the scope of the Journal. A strong point is the disturbance–threat–indicator framing, especially the distinction between indicators that are directly observable, proxy-observable, or essentially dependent on field validation. This is a valuable message, and it is well aligned with the practical reality that remote sensing can map disturbance footprints and surface expressions much better than it can directly quantify subsurface soil change.
A point which needs to be addressed is a partial but substantial overlapping with another recent review: Latterini F., Camarretta N., Watt M.S. Remote sensing for planning harvesting operations and monitoring their effects on the forest ecosystem: State of the art and future perspectives. Forest Ecology and Management 2025, 597, 123175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123175. The submitted manuscript has a broader disturbance scope, including wildfire, harvesting, insect outbreak, windthrow, mining, and off-road vehicles, but the harvesting subsection overlaps strongly. Here the major overlapping areas:
- Both papers identify LiDAR and UAV/SfM photogrammetry as key tools for detecting skid trails, rutting, soil displacement, and surface deformation. The submitted manuscript states that harvesting studies rely mainly on LiDAR and photogrammetry for rut geometry and surface disturbance reconstruction. This is very close to Latterini et al. discussion of LiDAR-based monitoring of canopy and soil disruption after forest operations
- Both works converge on the same broad conclusion: satellite data are better suited to broad-scale disturbance screening and canopy disturbance, while LiDAR is more suitable for fine-scale structural impacts, including soil disturbance. The two manuscripts have pretty similar conclusions that broad-scale satellite observations support screening, while site-scale diagnostics require high-resolution acquisitions.
- Both papers emphasize that RS is powerful for mapping visible disturbance but limited for direct measurement of subsurface soil change. The submitted manuscript is very explicit that bulk density, porosity, and hydraulic conductivity cannot be retrieved remotely and require in situ testing. This overlaps with the attached review’s broader framing that monitoring forest-operation impacts requires integrating RS with field validation and operational knowledge
- Both papers discuss AI and data fusion as future directions.
- The submitted manuscript frames RS-supported soil monitoring in relation to reporting frameworks and operational monitoring. The work by Latterini et al. goes further on practical adoption, emphasizing user-friendly software, training, and practitioner-oriented tools. This is an area where the submitted manuscript could be improved by citing recent operational forestry RS literature and by expanding the discussion of barriers to implementation.
- sub-section 4.5.2 is strongly overlapping with the review by Latterini et al., which morevoer went much deeper under this point. Not being this the main focus of the review, I even suggest to remove the entire sub-section
- Also looking at the database of Latterini et al., several papers seem to be missing (list could not be complete - please verify):
Abdi, O., Uusitalo, J., Kivinen, V.P., 2022. Logging trail segmentation via a novel U-Net convolutional neural network and High-Density laser scanning data. Remote Sens. 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14020349
Affek, A.N., Zachwatowicz, M., Sosnowska, A., Gerl´ee, A., Kiszka, K., 2017. Impacts of modern mechanised skidding on the natural and cultural heritage of the polish carpathian mountains. Ecol. Manag. 405, 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foreco.2017.09.047.
Osei Forkuo, G., Borz, S.A., Proto, A.R., 2025. Detecting severity and extent of soil disturbance in forest operations using mobile LiDAR technology. Croat. J. For. Eng. 46, 329–345. https://doi.org/10.5552/crojfe.2025.3246
Latterini, F., Dyderski, M.K., Picchio, R., Venanzi, R., Spinelli, R., Magagnotti, N., Schweier, J., Kushwaha, S.K.P., Camarretta, N., Watt, M.S., 2025b. Mapping skid trails and evaluating soil disturbance from UAV-Based LiDAR surveys in Mediterranean forests. Land Degrad. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.70162.
Wedeux, B., Dalponte, M., Schlund, M., Hagen, S., Cochrane, M., Graham, L., Usup, A., Thomas, A., Coomes, D., 2020. Dynamics of a human-modified tropical peat swamp forest revealed by repeat lidar surveys. Glob. Chang Biol. 26, 3947–3964. https:// doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15108.
Starke, M., Derron, C., Heubaum, F., Ziesak, M., 2020. Rut depth evaluation of a triple- bogie system for forwarders—field trials with TLS data support. Sustainability 12, 6412. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166412
Mikita, T., Krauskov´a, D., Hrůza, P., Cibulka, M., Patoˇcka, Z., 2022. Forest road wearing course damage assessment possibilities with different types of laser scanning methods including new iphone LiDAR scanning apps. Forests 13. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/f13111763.
Forkuo, G.O., Borz, S.A., 2023. Accuracy and inter-cloud precision of low-cost mobile LiDAR technology in estimating soil disturbance in forest operations. Front. For. Glob. Change 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1224575.
Lovrinˇcevi´c, M., Papa, I., Popovi´c, M., Janeˇs, D., Porˇsinsky, T., Pentek, T., Đuka, A., 2024. Methods of rut depth measurements on forwarder trails in lowland forest. Forests 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15061021.
Authors should therefore better clarify the differences with Latterini et al. in the Introduction section.
A further importanc concern is that the manuscript sometimes moves beyond evidence mapping and makes relatively strong claims about operational defensibility and national reporting without a sufficiently explicit assessment of study quality, validation strength, uncertainty, or transferability. The authors should clarify the difference between evidence availability and evidence robustness. If no formal quality appraisal was conducted, conclusions about operational reporting should be moderated.
The paper would benefit from a stricter distinction between disturbance indicators, surface-condition proxies, and actual soil degradation. This is particularly important for wildfire studies, where spectral indices such as NBR, dNBR, NDVI, char/ash cover, or vegetation loss may indicate burn severity or surface change but do not necessarily represent soil degradation directly. Similarly, for harvesting, the manuscript should more clearly separate machine-traffic detection, rut/deformation mapping, inferred compaction, and measured soil physical degradation. A visible skid trail or rut is not equivalent to bulk density, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, or biological degradation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1722-RC2
Data sets
Post-Disturbance Soil Monitoring in Forests using Remote Sensing: An Evidence Map M. Roach-Krajewski et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19225706
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 224 | 70 | 19 | 313 | 21 | 21 |
- HTML: 224
- PDF: 70
- XML: 19
- Total: 313
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The authors present a comprehensive review of post-disturbance forest soil monitoring and the use of remote sensing. The manuscript highlighted the extensive challenges and opportunities surrounding the use of disturbance detection and RS. The value of this manuscript is synthesizing these well known limitations/opportunities into a singular manuscript. I particularly appreciated the concluding statements on the use of RS for disturbance prevention and the future of quantum sensing/AI. The latter will indeed transform how we monitor and manage our forest systems.
Overall, I find this manuscript ready for publication. The only nit picky editorial item I could find was an extra space in front of a period on Line 54, otherwise the document was very well written.