Search

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.

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 hi

At the European scale, soil characteristics are needed to evaluate soil quality, soil health and soil-based ecosystem services in the context of the European Green Deal. While some soil databases exist at the European scale, a much larger wealth of data is present in individual European countries, allowing a more detailed soil assessment. There is thus an urgent and crucial need to combine these data at the European scale. In the frame of a large European Joint Programme on agricultural soils launched by the European Commission, a survey was conducted in the spring of 2020, in the 24 European participating countries to assess the existing soil data sources, focusing on agricultural soils. The survey will become a contribution to the European Soil Observatory, launched in December 2020, which aims to collect metadata of soil databases related to all kind of land uses, including forest and urban soils. Based upon a comprehensive questionnaire, 170 soil databases were identified at local, regional and national scales. Soil parameters were divided into five groups: (1) main soil parameters according to the Global Soil Map specifications; (2) other soil chemical parameters; (3) other physical parameters; (4) other pedological parameters; and (5) soil biological features. A classification based on the environmental zones of Europe was used to distinguish the climatic zones. This survey shows that while most of the main pedological and chemical parameters are included in more than 70% of the country soil databases, water content, contamination with organic pollutants, and biological parameters are the least frequently reported parameters. Such differences will have consequences when developing an EU policy on soil health as proposed under the EU soil strategy for 2023 and using the data to derive soil health indicators. Many differences in the methods used in collecting, preparing, and analysing the soils were found, thus requiring harmonization procedures and more coopera

Introduction: The Chesapeake Bay and Upper Bann watersheds in the United States and Northern Ireland, respectively, exemplify how agricultural systems contribute to groundwater and surface water pollution, which leads in turn to water quality issues in downstream water bodies. Interdisciplinary research, public outreach, and stakeholder engagement have received increased attention and consideration as pragmatic approaches for addressing these types of complex agri-environmental dilemmas. However, such approaches are far from guaranteed to improve water quality, as political-economic constraints, power asymmetries, cultural differences, divergent incentives, research gaps, and personality differences all complicate the process, and this can ultimately impact water quality efforts. Methods: We present a holistic approach to addressing these challenges in the Chesapeake Bay and Upper Bann watershed management efforts by integrating the methodological strategies of optimization and reflexivity. Our use of these approaches, widely recognized as respective successful practices in quantitative and qualitative research, is novel in that it focuses directly on the researchers themselves as they discuss, evaluate, and develop potential solutions for complex agri-environmental water quality dilemmas. More specifically, our quantitative optimization is explored via a Functional Land Management (FLM) approach to land and natural resources management, while our qualitative reflexivity is explored through the process of participant observation. Results: This paper provides a behind-the-scenes perspective on how interdisciplinary teams can improve their cooperation efficiency when addressing complex agri-environmental issues. In being reflexive, we sought to “optimize” on the methodological, ethical, social, and environmental possibilities of our scholarship. We found that our reflexive work on this project furthered our interest in FLM, a tool that embraced complexity and creativi

This dataset was collected between February and April 2019, to assess the information network of agricultural Best-Management Practices (BMPs) in central Pennsylvania, a sub-region of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It contains information flows (or "messages") relating to 16 specific BMPs, including: the BMP it relates to (e.g. riparian buffers, manure management planning, no-till, cover-cropping, etc.); the source and target of the information (actors); the kind of message (e.g. funding, regulation, technical assistance, etc.); the weight (strength) of messages (only for those received by farmers directly). Over 3900 messages/information flows were recorded, involving 57 actors. This data was used to conduct the study "When unriddling information pathways reveals governance opportunities: A social network analysis of agricultural best management practices in central Pennsylvania".

Soils form the basis for agricultural production and other ecosystem services, and soil management should aim at improving their quality and resilience. Within the SoilCare project, the concept of soil-improving cropping systems (SICS) was developed as a holistic approach to facilitate the adoption of soil management that is sustainable and profitable. SICS selected with stakeholders were monitored and evaluated for environmental, sociocultural, and economic effects to determine profitability and sustainability. Monitoring results were upscaled to European level using modelling and Europe-wide data, and a mapping tool was developed to assist in selection of appropriate SICS across Europe. Furthermore, biophysical, sociocultural, economic, and policy reasons for (non)adoption were studied. Results at the plot/farm scale showed a small positive impact of SICS on environment and soil, no effect on sustainability, and small negative impacts on economic and sociocultural dimensions. Modelling showed that different SICS had different impacts across Europe—indicating the importance of understanding local dynamics in Europe-wide assessments. Work on adoption of SICS confirmed the role economic considerations play in the uptake of SICS, but also highlighted social factors such as trust. The project’s results underlined the need for policies that support and enable a transition to more sustainable agricultural practices in a coherent way.

The data files attached are underlying publication doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0983-x Title: Functional Land Management: Bridging the Think-Do-Gap using a multi-stakeholder science policy interface. Authors: Lilian O'Sullivan (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5333-5758), David Wall (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2365-0335), Rachel Creamer (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3617-1357), Francesca Bampa (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4488-0420) &; Rogier P.O. Schulte (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9014-4344) Abstract: Functional Land Management (FLM) is proposed as an integrator for sustainability policies and assesses the functional capacity of the soil and land to deliver primary productivity, water purification and regulation, carbon cycling and storage, habitat for biodiversity and recycling of nutrients. This paper presents the catchment challenge as a method to bridge the gap between science, stakeholders and policy for the effective management of soils to deliver these functions. Two challenges were completed by a wide range of stakeholders focused around a physical catchment model—(1) to design an optimised catchment based on soil function targets, (2) identify gaps to implementation of the proposed design. In challenge 1, a high level of consensus between different stakeholders emerged on soil and management measures to be implemented to achieve soil function targets. Key gaps including knowledge, a mix of market and voluntary incentives and mandatory measures were identified in challenge 2., The data files attached are underlying publication doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0983-x Title: Functional Land Management: Bridging the Think-Do-Gap using a multi-stakeholder science policy interface. Authors: Lilian O'Sullivan (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5333-5758), David Wall (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2365-0335), Rachel Creamer (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3617-1357), Francesca Bampa (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4488-0420) & Rogier P.O. Schulte (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9014-4344) Abstract: Functional Land Management (FLM) is proposed as an integrator for sustainability policies and assesses the functional capacity of the soil and land to deliver primary productivity, water purification and regulation, carbon cycling and storage, habitat for biodiversity and recycling of nutrients. This paper presents the catchment challenge as a method to bridge the gap between science, stakeholders and policy for the effective management of soils to deliver these functions. Two challenges were completed by a wide range of stakeholders focused around a physical catchment model—(1) to design an optimised catchment based on soil function targets, (2) identify gaps to implementation of the proposed design. In challenge 1, a high level of consensus between different stakeholders emerged on soil and management measures to be implemented to achieve soil function targets. Key gaps including knowledge, a mix of market and voluntary incentives and mandatory measures were identified in challenge 2.

Water regulation and purification (WR) function is defined as "the capacity of the soil to remove harmful compounds and the capacity of the soil to receive, store and conduct water for subsequent use and to prevent droughts, flooding and erosion." It is a crucial function that society expects agricultural soils to deliver, contributing to quality water supply for human needs and in particular for ensuring food security. The complexity of processes involved and the intricate tradeoff with other necessary soil functions requires decision support tools for best management of WR function. However, the effects of farm and soil management practices on the delivery of the WR function has not been fully addressed by decision support tools for farmers. This work aimed to develop a decision support model for the management of the WR function performed by agricultural soils. The specific objectives of this paper were (i) to construct a qualitative decision support model to assess the water regulation and purification capacity of agricultural soils at field level, to (ii) conduct sensitivity analysis of the model; and (iii) to validate the model with independent empirical data. The developed decision support model for WR is a hierarchical qualitative model with 5 levels and has 27 basic attributes describing the soil (S), environment (E), and management (M) attributes of the field site to be assessed. The WR model is composed of 3 sub-models concerning (1) soil water storage, (2) P and sediment loss in runoff, and (3) N leaching in percolating water. The WR decision support model was validated using a representative dataset of 94 field sites from across Europe and had an overall accuracy of 75% when compared to the empirically derived values across these sites. This highly accurate, reliable, and useful decision support model for assessing the capacity of agricultural soils to perform the WR function can be used by farmers and advisors help manage and protect their soil reso