I do support such system as very important for practical use. It has own place in the range of different soil classifications based on other features.   

I do not.  If these were distinct soils - and authors offered no validation that these are distinct soil types - they would more likely be secondary to soil chemical composition/amendment.    Classification based on single secondary characteristics of a complex material may be prone to error.

Such system can prove a little misleading in some aspects. I'd say it's much more wise to look at at least two or three such secondary characteristics in order to classify the soil and to be somehow sure of that. What's more - these microorganisms which are used to classify the soil might have well appeared in this particular soil accidentaly.

i support it, but the diversity of microorganisms in different soils must be identified at first. Then the soils would be classified according to the major microbial groups.

The proposed classification of soils based on the activities and functions of their predominant microorganisms cannot cover the complexity of soils in the world. Really, I find several correlations among the microbial quality of described soils and other chemical and phycal properties, but this is not the case of all possible type of soils. So this classification cannot be of general use. I think that the scope of the proposer was not to generalise the possibility of such a classification, but to suggest a method for a subclassification of soils when you find a great variability in a limited area. 

Classification of soil based on microbial composition is a good idea. But this is difficult to do because most microbes cannot be cultured. Probably use of metagenome for this purpose would be better than use of cultivable microbes only

No. The factors involving pathogen colonies are more often than not changing. Plus man is forever messing with balance of microorganisms. We rarely see productive soils in their natural state.... only non-productive soils.

both your and Kandasamy thoughts are right. In non-disturbed soils the microbiota is changing only with seasons. In antropogenic soils the evolution of microbs is a little bit messy (to say the least). But, to compare different situations arisen from climate changes or environmental insults, I find useful to characterise culturable and non-culturable microorganisms also using metagenitics. I my region there are many oil wells. The characterization of microbiota is of fundamental importance to understand the evolution of soils close to wells.

Dear Richard

No Dear I do not support this. Sorry. Bcoz. microb counts varies with number of factors and difficult to culture. Thanks

The complexity of soils of the world cannot be covered by the proposed classification of soils. Of course microbial quality, chemical and physical properties of soils correlate but this cannot qualify to generalization. Moreover, Microbes activity are changing temporally with season and conditions. So to me its not a well established idea for generalized soil classification not even for a very limited area.

I agree that classification of Higa and Parr cannot be called "soil classification" because it does not consider many important factors.. 

But, Intensive use of pesticides and mineral fertilization cause significant changes in normal soil microbiota that result significant yield losses. From farmer's point of view, it is more important to know the reason of problem and way to restore soil productivity than to  learn exact scientific soil classification. Classification of Teruo Higa and James F. Parr (1994) in general reflect major problems of soil health in many countries.

Many scientific ways of soil description  do  not consider soil microbiota, and, for instance, rapid increase of Fusarium population does not change soil type.  I have met many farmers who requested to characterize soils in thier fields by Higa and Parr's way, so as they found it useful more that traditional description.   There are some if not many studies that support such approach. For example: http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS-01-11-0065

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929139313002242

Short answer is no. I feel strongly that we should describe and classify soil based of properties that are not easily modifiable by human means.