We appreciate the thoughtful commentary on our paper “Soil Health Assessment of Incorporating Bagasse in a Commercial Sugarcane Production System on Mineral Soils” (Xu et al. 2025). The Comment brings forward a valuable landscape-scale perspective, highlighting the potential implications of concentrated organic inputs on regional soil carbon (C) and nutrient balances. Our original study aimed to quantify field-scale effects of incorporating sugarcane bagasse, an abundant cellulose-rich byproduct, on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties under different nitrogen (N) fertilization rates. We acknowledge that the landscape-scale redistribution of organic materials and nutrients is an important topic that merits broader discussion. However, the scope and objectives of our study were clearly confined to plot-level soil health responses, using an experimental design intended to understand process-level changes rather than to prescribe region-wide management rates. This field-scale assessment builds on a broader body of our work examining sugarcane bagasse management from complementary perspectives, including sugarcane yield and nutrient uptake (Xu et al. 2021), nutrient leaching (Xu et al. 2022), and residue decomposition and nutrient dynamics (Xu et al. 2023). Together, these studies provide a more comprehensive understanding of the agronomic and environmental implications of bagasse management, while recognizing that landscape-scale carbon accounting requires additional, system-level analyses beyond the scope of any single field experiment. Below, we address the main points raised in the Comment, clarify our methodological context, and outline how future research could integrate both field-level data and landscape-scale considerations. The Comment compares our experimental approach to historical plaggen agriculture, in which organic materials were removed from surrounding heathlands to enrich small, intensively cultivated areas. In these systems, nutrient export from large source areas often resulted in long-term soil degradation (Behre 2025; Drechsler 1869; Luedecke 1917; Donaldson et al. 2009; Wüstemann et al. 2023). While this analogy is conceptually interesting, it does not accurately reflect the current sugarcane production system or the intent of our research. Bagasse is not extracted from natural or agricultural soils; it is an industrial byproduct generated during sugar processing. In South Florida, bagasse is primarily used as fuel for cogeneration in sugar mills, and some are converted into industrial products such as paper and biodegradable items (Bhadha et al. 2020; Brown et al. 2019). Its use as a soil amendment represents a closed-loop recycling practice within the same production system rather than a transfer of organic matter from other lands. The Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) is a highly managed agroecosystem in South Florida where most residues—leaves, tops, and bagasse—are generated, processed, and utilized locally. Returning bagasse to sugarcane soils recycles locally produced biomass C, aligns with circular bioeconomy principles, and offers a low-cost soil amendment option (Bhadha et al. 2020). The Comment points out that evaluating soil C dynamics at broader spatial scales is essential for assessing the sustainability of organic matter management. However, our study's objective was to establish baseline empirical data on soil property responses to bagasse incorporation at the plot scale—a necessary first step before regional extrapolation can occur. Landscape-scale assessments require analytical approaches that extend beyond field-level experimentation, including carbon mass-balance modeling (Paustian et al. 2016), life cycle assessment (Goglio et al. 2015), and spatial or remote-sensing–based carbon mapping (Hengl et al. 2017). Our research did not attempt to perform such assessments, nor did it imply broader transfer of organic matter across regions. Rather, it generated the mechanistic data needed to support future modeling efforts. Nevertheless, we agree that integrating field-based measurements with regional modeling would be a logical and valuable extension of this work. Future studies could evaluate how different bagasse utilization scenarios—such as combustion for bioenergy, composting, or field incorporation—affect the regional carbon footprint and soil health outcomes. The Comment suggests that our highest application rate of 170 Mg ha−1 represents the bagasse residue produced from approximately 10 ha of sugarcane cultivation, implying a redistribution of organic materials from a larger land area to a smaller one. This interpretation is based on a mathematical extrapolation that does not reflect how application rates in our experiment were determined, nor does it correspond to the intent or context of the study. In our research, the bagasse rates used in our study were selected based on field equipment constraints and experimental design objectives, not residue availability. The minimum rate of 85 Mg ha−1 reflects the lowest uniform rate that could be applied reliably with the field-scale spreader. The 170 Mg ha−1 treatment was simply a twofold increment to evaluate soil responses across a wider input range. Using a baseline operational rate and a higher rate to examine dose–response effects is common in soil amendment research and enables identification of thresholds and mechanistic changes in soil properties (e.g., De Lucia et al. 2013; Vignozzi et al. 2023). Moreover, since bagasse has a high C:N ratio (≈ 66; Table 1 of our published paper; Xu et al. 2025), supplemental N was applied only to minimize the risk of temporary N immobilization during early crop growth. Second, equating C input mass with stabilized SOC contradicts well-established understanding of soil C cycling. Only a portion of fresh organic inputs is retained in soil, while a substantial share is mineralized to CO2 during microbial decomposition. The proportion of carbon that becomes stabilized is constrained by microbial processing efficiency and the limited mineral surface area available for organo-mineral association—constraints that are especially pronounced in warm, sandy soils such as those in our study (Cotrufo et al. 2013; Six et al. 2002). Thus, neither the mass of bagasse applied nor its C content can be interpreted as directly translating into proportional, long-term SOC gains. We appreciate the Comment's reminder that diversified cropping systems, including crop rotations and intercropping, are widely recognized for their potential to enhance soil health (Baldwin-Kordick et al. 2022; Pankhurst et al. 2003; Zou et al. 2024). We fully support the importance of these practices. In the sugarcane production systems of South Florida, crop rotation has been well documented. For example, rotational sequences incorporating flooded rice during the fallow period have been shown to improve soil physical properties, conserve water, suppress weeds, and enhance subsequent sugarcane yields (Glaz and Ulloa 1994; Schueneman et al. 2001). UF/IFAS research further demonstrates that sugarcane–rice rotations can mitigate soil subsidence and contribute to improved soil sustainability in EAA (Bhadha et al. 2018; Bhadha et al. 2021). In addition to rice, short-season winter vegetables such as sweet corn and leafy greens are also grown as rotational crops in some EAA farms (Sharma et al. 2025), providing opportunities for diversified land use between sugarcane cycles. By contrast, intercropping has not been widely adopted or systematically evaluated in commercial sugarcane fields in South Florida. This reflects the unique agronomic and environmental conditions of the EAA, where sugarcane is grown as a long-duration perennial crop over multi-year cycles, managed using large-scale mechanized equipment, and supported by water-table and flooding practices that are incompatible with most intercrop species. These constraints differ from conditions in regions where sugarcane intercropping has been evaluated, and as a result, intercropping has not become a practical or commonly studied approach in South Florida. Importantly, residue incorporation or the application of organic amendments and crop diversification are complementary rather than competing strategies. Incorporating an abundant industry byproduct such as bagasse remains one of the most practical mechanisms for increasing soil organic matter inputs in South Florida sugarcane fields. Because sugarcane is typically maintained for several growing cycles and does not lend itself easily to annual rotation frameworks, returning locally produced organic residues provides a feasible and impactful pathway to enhance soil biological activity and improve soil physical properties. The Comment raises an important conceptual point regarding the potential landscape-scale impacts of organic matter redistribution. In the context of South Florida sugarcane systems, however, these concerns do not apply, as bagasse is an industrial byproduct recycled within the same production system rather than a resource removed from agricultural land. Our study provides field-scale evidence of how bagasse incorporation affects soil health in sandy mineral soils and is not intended to quantify regional carbon or nutrient dynamics. Future work integrating residue management with crop rotation intervals, cover cropping, regional carbon accounting, and systems-level modeling would help connect field-scale findings with broader sustainability objectives. We appreciate the Comment's perspective and agree that multi-scale research will be essential for advancing soil and nutrient management strategies that are both locally effective and regionally sustainable. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data sharing is not applicable to this article, as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Xu et al. (Thu,) studied this question.