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).

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.