Distinguishing knowledge mapping from biophysical evidence: A Rejoinder to "Comment on 'Mapping Soil Organic Carbon Research in Conservation Agriculture'"

This work clarifies the distinction between bibliometric knowledge mapping and biophysical evidence assessment in conservation agriculture–soil organic carbon (SOC) research. We agree that robust evaluation of SOC sequestration requires stock-based measurements, adequate sampling depth, bulk density correction, equivalent soil mass approaches, long-term experiments, and process-based interpretation. However, bibliometric analysis serves a different but complementary purpose. It maps how a research field has developed, where scholarly attention has accumulated, which methods and themes are emerging, and where evidence remains fragmented or methodologically uneven. In this sense, bibliometric indicators should therefore not be interpreted as direct evidence of SOC sequestration. They can help identify where more rigorous field experiments, meta-analysis, and modeling studies, and evidence grading are needed. Integrating knowledge mapping with robust empirical evidence can strengthen conservation agriculture research and support more transparent soil carbon management, farming systems analysis, and climate change mitigation.