Search

Soil plays a central role in most aspects of human societies, and there is a large body of literature about sustainable soil management. Nevertheless, soil is currently facing degradation arising from different threats, which undermines sustainable development globally. In order to design effective research and policy strategies, it is necessary to identify the current knowledge level about sustainable soil management. This study summarises the key findings from a systematic stocktake of available knowledge about agricultural soil management practices in 23 European countries, which included the identification of soil management practices in use, the associated impacts and the soil challenges addressed. The aim of the study was to understand the current state of knowledge about the impacts of soil management practices, investigated and/or implemented across Europe. The results were analysed at the European level and were also grouped into European Regions and Environmental Zones. Key findings from this study were the identification of knowledge gaps that are key to climate mitigation and adaptation. There is a knowledge gap about soil management practices to avoid greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils, as the few reported studies evidence the complexity of the processes governing these emissions. Further knowledge is needed on the impact of tillage practices on long‐term carbon storage and distribution along the soil profile, as the reported knowledge was not consensual about carbon storage in deeper soil layers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sustainable agricultural soil management practices are key to restore, maintain and improve soil health. The European Joint Programme for SOIL (EJP SOIL) has identified twelve main soil challenges in Europe. To assess the potential and eventually increase the adoption of soil‐improving management practices, it is necessary to know (i) the current levels of adoption of the practices, (ii) socio‐technical barriers influencing their adoption, and (iii) their bio‐physical limits. This study compiled an inventory of soil‐improving management practices relevant to European conditions, and used a survey among soil scientists to assess the levels of adoption of these practices in Europe. In total, 53 soil management practices were identified that address one or several of the soil challenges. The adoption of most practices was low or spatially heterogeneous across Europe, highlighting region‐specific limitations to sustainable soil management. Qualitative interviews were conducted to explore the importance of socio‐technical aspects of adoption. Using conservation agriculture as an example, factors that can hinder adoption included the availability of knowledge and adequate machinery, financial risks, and farming traditions. Through a modelling approach, 54% of arable land in Europe was found to be suitable for cover cropping, indicating that the adoption of soil management practices is frequently limited by climatic constraints. We propose a region‐specific approach that recognizes the importance of identifying and overcoming socio‐technical barriers, and by acknowledging bio‐physical limits that may be expanded by innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European soils are under increasing pressure, making it difficult to maintain the provision of soil ecosystem services (SESs). A better understanding of soil processes is needed to counteract soil threats (STs) and to promote sustainable soil management. The EJP SOIL programme of the EU provides a framework for the necessary research. However, different definitions of soil‐related terms potentially lead to varied understandings of concepts. Furthermore, there are numerous indicators available to quantify STs or SESs. As unclear communication is a key barrier that hinders the implementation of research results into practice, this study aimed to answer the question about whether the terminology of large‐scale initiatives is adequately understood within the soil‐science community and non‐research stakeholders. An online questionnaire was used to provide definitions for 33 soil‐related terms in both scientific and plain language, as well as indicators for seven SESs and 11 STs. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with the definitions and indicators on a seven‐grade Likert scale. The level of agreement was calculated as the percentage of ratings above 4, the neutral position. The survey was available from June to September 2023 and was distributed by a snowball approach. More than 260 stakeholders assessed the survey; 70% of respondents were researchers, and 15% were practitioners. Mean agreement levels for the definitions and indicators were generally high, at 85% and 78% respectively. However, it was apparent that the lowest agreement was found for terms that are relatively new, such as Ecosystem Services and Bundle, or unfamiliar for certain subgroups, such as ecological terms for stakeholders working at the farm scale. Due to their distinct majority, the results of this study primarily reflect the opinions of scientists. Thus, broad conclusions can only be drawn by comparing scientists with non‐scientists. In this regard, the agreement was surprisingly high across all types of questions. The combined outcomes indicate that there is still a need to facilitate communication between stakeholders and to improve knowledge distribution strategies. Nevertheless, this study can support and be used by future projects and programmes, especially regarding the harmonization of terminology and methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electromagnetic induction (EMI) and electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) are geophysical techniques measuring soil electrical conductivity and providing insights into properties correlated with it to depths of several meters. EMI measures the apparent electrical conductivity (ECa, dS m−1) without physical contact, while ERT acquires apparent electrical resistivity (ERa, ohm m) using electrodes. Both involve mathematical inversion to obtain models of spatial distribution for soil electrical conductivity (σ, mS m−1) and electrical resistivity (ρ, ohm m), respectively, where ρ is the reciprocal of σ. Soil salinity can be assessed from σ over large areas using a calibration process consisting of a regression between σ and the electrical conductivity of the saturated soil paste extract (ECe, dS m−1), used as a proxy for soil salinity. This research aims to compare the prediction abilities of the faster EMI to the more reliable ERT for estimating σ and predicting soil salinity. The study conducted surveys and sampling at four locations with distinct salinity levels in Portugal, analysing the agreement between the techniques, and obtained 2D vertical soil salinity maps. In our case study, the agreement between EMI and ERT models was fairly good in three locations, with σ varying between 50 and 500 mS m−1. However, this was not the case at location 4, where σ exceeded 1000 mS m−1 and EMI significantly underestimated σ when compared to ERT. As for soil salinity prediction, both techniques generally provided satisfactory and comparable regional-level predictions of ECe, and the observed underestimation in EMI models did not significantly affect the overall estimation of soil salinity. Consequently, EMI demonstrated an acceptable level of accuracy in comparison to ERT in our case studies, supporting confidence in utilizing this faster and more practical technique for measuring soil salinity over large areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]