Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-7505

ISSN 2095-977X(Online)

CN 10-1204/S

Postal Subscription Code 80-906

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.    2020, Vol. 7 Issue (3) : 282-288    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2020338
REVIEW
New approaches for evaluation of soil health, sensitivity and resistance to degradation
Yakov KUZYAKOV1,2(), Anna GUNINA3, Kazem ZAMANIAN1, Jing TIAN4, Yu LUO5, Xingliang XU6,7, Anna YUDINA8, Humberto APONTE9, Hattan ALHARBI2, Lilit OVSEPYAN10, Irina KURGANOVA10, Tida GE11, Thomas GUILLAUME12
1. Department of Soil Science of Temperate Ecosystems, Department of Agricultural Soil Science, University of Goettingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
2. College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
3. Department of Environmental Chemistry, University of Kassel, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
4. College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, Key Laboratory of Plant-Soil Interactions (Ministry of Education), China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
5. Institute of Soil and Water Resources and Environmental Science, Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Agricultural Resources and Environment, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
6. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
7. CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Beijing 100101, China
8. Department of Soil Physics and Hydrology, V.V. Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute, Moscow 119017, Russia
9. Center for Research in Mycorrhiza and Agri-Environmental Sustainability (CIMYSA), University of La Frontera, Temuco, Chile
10. Institute of Physicochemical and Biological Problems in Soil Science, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Moscow 142290, Russia
11. State Key Laboratory for Managing Biotic and Chemical Threats to the Quality and Safety of Agro-products, Key Laboratory of Biotechnology in Plant Protection of Ministry of Agriculture of China and Zhejiang Province, Institute of Plant Virology, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China
12. Laboratory of Biogeosciences, Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
 Download: PDF(760 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Assessment of soil health requires complex evaluation of properties and functions responsible for a broad range of ecosystem services. Numerous soil quality indices (SQI) have been suggested for the evaluation of specific groups of soil functions, but comparison of various SQI is impossible because they are based on a combination of specific soil properties. To avoid this problem, we suggest an SQI-area approach based on the comparison of the areas on a radar diagram of a combination of chemical, biological and physical properties. The new approach is independent of the SQI principle and allows rapid and simple comparison of parameter groups and soils. Another approach analyzing the resistance and sensitivity of properties to degradation is suggested for a detailed evaluation of soil health. The resistance and sensitivity of soil properties are determined through comparison with the decrease of soil organic carbon (SOC) as a universal parameter responsible for many functions. The SQI-area and resistance/sensitivity approaches were tested based on the recovery of Phaeozems and Chernozems chronosequences after the abandonment of agricultural soils. Both the SQI-area and the resistance/sensitivity approaches are useful for basic and applied research, and for decision-makers to evaluate land-use practices and measure the degree of soil degradation.
Keywords ecosystem stability      land quality      land degradation      soil health      soil management      soil organic matter     
Corresponding Author(s): Yakov KUZYAKOV   
Online First Date: 04 June 2020    Issue Date: 28 July 2020
 Cite this article:   
Yakov KUZYAKOV,Anna GUNINA,Kazem ZAMANIAN, et al. New approaches for evaluation of soil health, sensitivity and resistance to degradation[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(3): 282-288.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2020338
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2020/V7/I3/282
Fig.1  The soil quality index area (SQI-area) approach suitable for unifying evaluation of any number of soil parameters and to compare various SQI methods. A decrease in the area on the radar plot between a non-degraded and a degraded soil is necessary. The ratio between the SQI area of non-degraded and degraded soils is independent of the number of parameters and the weightings involved in the calculation of the area. Chemical soil parameters are indicated in blue, physical in red, and biological in green. SOC, soil organic carbon content; TN, total nitrogen content; Avail P, available phosphorus; CEC, cation exchange capacity; WHC, water holding capacity; Density, soil bulk density; MaAgg, macroaggregates; Depth, depth of Ah/Ap+ B horizons; CO2, CO2 efflux from soil; MBC, microbial biomass carbon content; Nemat, nematodes; and EarthW, earthworms. The ratio of the areas of degraded to non-degraded SQI in this example is 0.47, reflecting that on average half of the properties and functions are lost by degradation. Note that the values on the degraded soil plot are arbitrary (not experimental); for examples of experimental data see the references[10,13].
Fig.2  The Soil Quality Index area (SQI-area) approach presented on examples of two chronosequences of recovery of agricultural soils after abandonment and natural succession under deciduous forest: Luvic Phaeozem (a); and under dry steppe: Calcic Chernozem (b) (data from Ovsepyan et al.[10]). The arable, young, middle, mature and non-degraded soils represent the recovery stage. The number close to the recovery stage shows the years of abandonment reflecting the recovery period. The measured soil properties are: SOC, soil organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen; Free LF, free light fraction (r<1.6 g·cm−3); Occl.LF, occluded light fraction (r<2.0 g·cm−3); Mineral-SOM, heavy fraction (r>2.0 g·cm−3); WHC, water holding capacity; Basal CO2, basal respiration; Cmic, microbial biomass carbon.
Fig.3  Development of Soil Quality Index area (SQI-area) during recovery of agricultural soils after abandonment and natural succession under deciduous forest: Luvic Phaeozem; and under dry steppe: Calcic Chernozem[10]. The area and the parameters are presented in Fig.2.
Fig.4  Concept and evaluation principle of sensitivity and resistance of soil parameters to degradation or land-use change based on the comparison with soil organic carbon (SOC) content changes. Adapted from Guillaume et al.[13], with permission from Elsevier. Soil properties can decrease proportionally with the decrease of SOC content (identity line, 1:1), or be resistant (above the identity line, 1:1) or sensitive (below the identity line, 1:1) compared to the SOC. The sensitivity or resistance of a property is either independent of SOC loss intensity (dashed lines) or dependent on SOC loss intensity (dotted lines). All properties are standardized to non-degraded reference soil (1.0, see Eq. (1)) and can decrease to 0. For soil properties (Y scale), any soil parameters (e.g., involved in the calculation of SQI) can be used. Usually, (micro)biological properties are more sensitive and physical properties are more resistant to soil degradation.
Fig.5  Experimental evaluation of sensitivity and resistance of soil parameters to degradation or land-use change based on the comparison with changes of soil organic carbon (SOC) content during recovery of agricultural soils after abandonment and natural succession under deciduous forest: Luvic Phaeozem (a); and under dry steppe: Calcic Chernozem (b) (data from Ovsepyan et al.[10]). The green arrows reflect the direction of development of SOC and all soil parameters during recovery. For detailed explanations see Fig.2. The sensitive and resistant parameters are presented for each soil.
1 E K Bünemann, G Bongiorno, Z G Bai, R E Creamer, G De Deyn, R de Goede, L Fleskens, V Geissen, T W Kuyper, P Mader, M Pulleman, W Sukkel, J W van Groenigen, L Brussaard. Soil quality—a critical review. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2018, 120: 105–125
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030
2 J W Doran, T B Parkin. Defining and assessing soil quality. In: Doran J W, Coleman D C, Bezdicek D F, Stewart B A, eds. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, 1994, 3–21
3 J W Doran, T B Parkin. Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set. In: Doran J W, Jones A J. eds. Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, 1996, 25–37
4 S Gauthier, P Bernier, T Kuuluvainen, A Z Shvidenko, D G Schepaschenko. Boreal forest health and global change. Science, 2015, 349(6250): 819–822
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9092
5 C P O Reyer, N Brouwers, A Rammig, B W Brook, J Epila, R F Grant, M Holmgren, F Langerwisch, S Leuzinger, W Lucht, B Medlyn, M Pfeifer, J Steinkamp, M C Vanderwel, H Verbeeck, D M Villela. Forest resilience and tipping points at different spatio-temporal scales: approaches and challenges. Journal of Ecology, 2015, 103(1): 5–15
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12337
6 E Milne, S A Banwart, E Noellemeyer, D J Abson, C Ballabio, F Bampa, A Bationo, N H Batjes, M Bernoux, T Bhattacharyya, H Black, D E Buschiazzo, Z C Cai, C E Cerri, K Cheng, C Compagnone, R Conant, H L C Coutinho, D de Brogniez, F de Carvalho Balieiro, C Duffy, C Feller, E C C Fidalgo, C F da Silva, R Funk, G Gaudig, P T Gicheru, M Goldhader, P Gottschalk, F Goulet, T Goverse, P Grathwohl, H Joosten, P T Kamoni, J Kihara, R Krawcaynski, N L Scala Jr, P Lemanceau, L Q Li, Z C Li, E Lugato, P A Maron, C Martius, J Melillo, L Montanarella, N Nikolaidis, G Nziguheba, G X Pan, U Pascual, K Paustian, G Pineiro, D Powlson, A Quiroga, D Richter, A Sigwalt, J Six, J Smith, P Smith, M Stacking, F Tanneberger, M Termansen, M van Noordwijk, B van Wesemael, R Vargas, R L Victoria, B Waswa, D Werner, S Wichmann, W Wichtmann, X H Zhang, Y C Zhao, J W Zheng, J F Zheng. Soil carbon, multiple benefits. Environmental Development, 2015, 13: 33–38
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2014.11.005
7 D Keesstra Saskia, J Bouma, J Wallinga, P Tittonell, P Smith, A Cerdà, L Montanarella, J N Quinton, Y Pachepsky, W H van der Putten, R D Bardgett, S Moolenaar, G Mol, B Jansen, L O Fresco. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil, 2016, 2(2): 111–128
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-111-2016
8 G Schwilch, L Bernet, L Fleskens, E Giannakis, J Leventon, T Marañón, J Mills, C Short, J Stolte, H van Delden, S Verzandvoort. Operationalizing ecosystem services for the mitigation of soil threats: a proposed framework. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 67: 586–597
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.016
9 Y Kuzyakov, K Zamanian. Reviews and syntheses: Agropedogenesis–Humankind as the sixth soil-forming factor and attractors of agricultural soil degradation. Biogeosciences, 2019, 16(24): 4783–4803
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-4783-2019
10 L Ovsepyan, I Kurganova, V Lopes de Gerenyu, Y Kuzyakov. Recovery of organic matter and microbial biomass after abandonment of degraded agricultural soils: the influence of climate. Land Degradation & Development, 2019, 30(15): 1861–1874
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3387
11 S S Andrews, D L Karlen, J P Mitchell. A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2002, 90(1): 25–45
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00174-8
12 S S Andrews, C B Flora, J P Mitchell, D L Karlen. Growers’ perceptions and acceptance of soil quality indices. Geoderma, 2003, 114(3–4): 187–213
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00041-7
13 T Guillaume, D Maranguit, K Murtilaksono, Y Kuzyakov. Sensitivity and resistance of soil fertility indicators to land-use changes: new concept and examples from conversion of Indonesian rainforest to plantations. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 67: 49–57
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.039
14 L A Ovsepyan, I N Kurganova, V O Lopes de Gerenyu, A V Rusakov, Y V Kuzyakov. Changes in the fractional composition of organic matter in the soils of the forest-steppe zone during their postagrogenic evolution. Eurasian Soil Science, 2020, 53(1): 50–61
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229320010123
15 J D Glover, J P Reganold, P K Andrews. Systematic method for rating soil quality of conventional, organic, and integrated apple orchards in Washington State. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2000, 80(1–2): 29–45
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00131-6
16 S S Andrews, C R Carroll. Designing a soil quality assessment tool for sustainable agroecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 2001, 11(6): 1573–1585
https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[1573:DASQAT]2.0.CO;2
17 L A L de Bruyn, J A Abbey. Characterisation of farmers’ soil sense and the implications for on-farm monitoring of soil health. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2003, 43(3): 285–305
https://doi.org/10.1071/EA00176
18 M Ros, M T Hernandez, C Garcia. Soil microbial activity after restoration of a semiarid soil by organic amendments. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2003, 35(3): 463–469
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00298-5
19 C Trasar Cepeda, C Leiros, F Gil Sotres, S Seoane. Towards a biochemical quality index for soils: an expression relating several biological and biochemical properties. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 1997, 26(2): 100–106
https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050350
[1] Rebecca SCHNEIDER, Stephen MORREALE, Zhigang LI, Erin MENZIES PLUER, Kirsten KURTZ, Xilu NI, Cuiping WANG, Changxiao LI, Harold VAN ES. Restoring soil health to reduce irrigation demand and buffer the impacts of drought[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(3): 339-346.
[2] Enli WANG, Di HE, Zhigan ZHAO, Chris J. SMITH, Ben C. T. MACDONALD. Using a systems modeling approach to improve soil management and soil quality[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(3): 289-295.
[3] Qiaofang LU, Tongtong LIU, Nanqi WANG, Zhechao DOU, Kunguang WANG, Yuanmei ZUO. A review of soil nematodes as biological indicators for the assessment of soil health[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(3): 275-281.
[4] Xinquan ZHAO, Liang ZHAO, Qi LI, Huai CHEN, Huakun ZHOU, Shixiao XU, Quanmin DONG, Gaolin WU, Yixin HE. Using balance of seasonal herbage supply and demand to inform sustainable grassland management on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 5(1): 1-8.
[5] Yingshuang BAO, Leilei CHENG, Yanfeng BAO, Liu YANG, Lina JIANG, Chao LONG, Zhe KONG, Peng PENG, Jun XIAO, Qi LU. Desertification: China provides a solution to a global challenge[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2017, 4(4): 402-413.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed