Yes. I think GP’s point is that dinosaurs and big tractors are different enough that it’s unwise to dismiss concerns about this as “well, it worked for the dinosaurs.”

Mass and ground loading is just one part of the picture. Roam area, root structure, etc make a difference.

The point of the article is that from the fact current heavy tractors are ruining soils we should wonder how Sauropods managed to survive despite being worse for the soil.

Oh, thats easy - we are 8 billion, sauropods were a few million. We can't digest cellulose, and sauropods could. We eat mean, and sauropods didn't.

If you can digest tree bark and have 5 square kilometers per person you can damage the soil as much as you want, something will still grow.

But if you want civilisation to survive, we need a regular harvest of 40 tons per hectare for potato, and if that number falls to 20 there is a famine.

The Sauropods where around for over 20 million years though, but moving at an average of 1 m/s it doesn't take even a year to visit all square metres inside the allotted box.

That number was for a human - a hectar of land can feed a person, so 500 hectars can feed a person even if you are inefficient, damaging the soil, etc.

You are the one advocating we live like Sauropods, so you should be telling us what was the roaming range of one - a male bobcat has roaming range of 20 to 70 sq. Kilometers