Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:19:53.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil quality: Attributes and relationship to alternative and sustainable agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

J.F. Parr ,
R.I. Papendick ,
S.B. Hornick  and
R.E. Meyer
J.F. Parr
Affiliation:
Soil Scientists, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD 20705.
R.I. Papendick
Affiliation:
Soil Scientist, ARS-USDA, Pullman, WA 99164.
S.B. Hornick
Affiliation:
Soil Scientists, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD 20705.
R.E. Meyer
Affiliation:
Soil Scientist, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523.
Get access

Abstract

Different chemical, physical, and biological properties of a soil interact in complex ways that determine its potential fitness or capacity to produce healthy and nutritious crops. The integration of these properties andine resulting level of productivity often is referred to as “soil quality.” Soil quality can be defined as an inherent attribute of a soil that is inferred from its specific characteristics and observations (e.g., compactability, erodibility, and fertility). The term also refers to the soil's structural integrity, which imparts resistance to erosion, and to the loss of plant nutrients and organic matter. Soil quality often is related to soil degradation, which can be defined as the time rate of change in soil quality.

Soil quality should not be limited to soil productivity, but should encompass environmental quality, human and animal health, and food safety and quality. There is inadequate reliable information on how changes in soil quality directly affect food quality, or indirectly affect human and animal health. In characterizing soil quality, biological properties have received less emphasis than chemical and physical properties, because their effects are difficult to measure, predict, or quantify. Improved soil quality often is indicated by increased infiltration, aeration, macropores, aggregate size, aggregate stability, and soil organic matter, and by decreased bulk density, soil resistance, erosion, and nutrient runoff. These are useful, but future research should seek to identify and quantify reliable and meaningful biological/ecological indicators of soil quality, such as total species diversity or genetic diversity of beneficial soil microorganisms, insects, and animals.

Because these biological/ecological indexes of soil quality are dynamic, they will require effective monitoring and assessment programs to develop appropriate databases for research and technology transfer. We need to know how such indexes are affected by management inputs, whether they can serve as early warning indicators of soil degradation, and how they relate to the sustainability of agricultural systems.

Keywords

global changesoil erosionsoil degradation
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 1-2: Special Issue on Soil Quality , June 1992 , pp. 5 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Allison, F.E. 1973. Soil Organic Matter and its Role in Crop Production. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
2.Brown, L.R., and Wolf, E.C.. 1984, Soil Erosion: Quiet Crisis in the World Economy. WorldWatch Paper 60. WorldWatch Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
3.Dregne, H.E. 1992. Erosion and soil productivity in Asia. J. Soil and Water Conservation 47:8–13.Google Scholar
4.Food and Agriculture Organization. 1986. African Agriculture: The Next 25 Years. Main Report. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
5.Gibbons, B., and Wilson, S.C.. 1984. Do we treat our soil like dirt? National Geographic 166(3):350–389.Google Scholar
6.Gomey, A., and Juste, C.. 1986. Soil protection programmes and strategies in other community member states: Setting up of an observation network for soil quality in France. In Barth, H. and L'hermite, P. (eds). Scientific Basis for Soil Protection in the European Community. Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York.Google Scholar
7.Granatstein, D. 1990. Overview of cropping systems alternative research. In Management Strategies for a Sustainable Cereal Cropping System. ANR Program Support Workshop. Cooperative Extension, Washington State Univ., Pullman.Google Scholar
8.Haberern, J. 1992. A soil health index. J. Soil and Water Conservation 47:6.Google Scholar
9.Hornick, S.B. 1992. Factors affecting the nutritional quality of crops. Amer. J. Alternative Agric 7:63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Hornick, S.B., and Parr, J.F.. 1987. Restoring the productivity of marginal soils with organic amendments. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 2:64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Houghton, R.A., Hobbie, J.E., Melillo, J.M., Moore, B., Peterson, B.J., Shaver, G.R., and Woodwell, G.M.. 1983. Changes in the carbon content of terrestrial biota and soils between 1860 and 1980: A net release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Ecol. Monogr. 53:235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Kern, J.S., and Johnson, M.G.. 1991. The impact of conservation tillage use on soil and atmospheric carbon in the contiguous United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/3–91/056. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
13.Langdale, G.W., Box, J.E. Jr., Leonard, R.A., Barnett, A.P., and Fleming, W.G.. 1979. Corn yield reduction on eroded Southern Piedmont soils. J. Soil and Water Conservation 34:226–228.Google Scholar
14.Larson, W.E., Foster, G.R., Allmaras, R.R., and Smith, C.M.. 1990. Research Issues in Soil Erosion/Productivity—Executive Summary. Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
15.Lowdermilk, W.C. 1953. Conquest of the land through 7,000 years. Agric. Inf. Bull. No. 99. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
16.Massee, T.W. 1990. Simulated erosion and fertilizer effects on winter wheat cropping intermountain dryland area. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 54:1720–1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.National Research Council, Board on Agriculture. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
18.National Research Council, Board on Agriculture. 1991. Proceedings of a Workshop on Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
19.Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A., and Sombroek, W.G.. 1990. World map on the status of human-induced soil degradation, at an average scale of 1:10 million. United Nations Environment Programme and the International Soil Reference and Information Centre. UNEP/ISRIC. Nairobi, Kenya and Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
20.Papendick, R.I., Young, D.L., McCool, O.K., and Krauss, H.A.. 1985. Regional effects of soil erosion on crop productivity – The Palouse area of the Pacific Northwest. In Follett, R. F. and Stewart, B. A. (eds). Soil Erosion and Crop Productivity. Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Crop Sci. Soc. Amer., and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 305–320.Google Scholar
21.Parr, J.F., Stewart, B.A., Hornick, S.B., and Singh, R.P.. 1990. Improving the sustainability of dryland farming systems: A global perspective. Advances in Soil Sci. 13:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Pierce, F.J., Larson, W.E., Dowdy, R.H., and Graham, W.A.P.. 1983. Productivity of soils: Assessing long term changes due to erosion. J. Soil and Water Conservation 38:39–44.Google Scholar
23.Plucknett, D.L., and Smith, N.J.H.. 1984. Networking in international agricultural research. Science 225:989–993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Reganold, J.P. 1986. The land capability classification system. Northwest Land Use Review 2:11–13.Google Scholar
25.Reganold, J.P., and Parr, J.F.. 1988. IFOAM conference focuses on agricultural alternatives and nutritional self-sufficiency for developing countries. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 3(4):186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Sampson, R.N. 1981. Losing soil quality. In Farmland or Wasteland. Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania, pp. 133–152.Google Scholar
27.Sanders, D.W. 1992. International activities in assessing and monitoring soil degradation. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Schlesinger, W.H. 1984. Soil organic matter: A source of atmospheric CO2. In Woodwell, G. M. (ed). The Role of Terrestrial Vegetation in the Global Carbon Cycle, SCOPE 23:111–127. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
29.Schlesinger, W.H. 1986. Changes in soil carbon storage and associated properties with disturbance and recovery. In Trabalka, J.R. and Reichle, D.E. (eds). The Changing Carbon Cycle – A Global Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y. pp. 194–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Smith, J.L., and Paul, E.A.. 1990. The significance of soil microbial biomass estimations. Soil Biochemistry 6:357–395.Google Scholar
31.Soil Science Society of America. 1984. Glossary of Soil Science Terms. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
32.Storie, E.R. 1976. Storie index rating. Spec. Pub. 3203, Appendix D. Div. of Agric. Sciences, Univ. of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
33.Stork, N.E., and Eggleton, P.. 1992. Invertebrates as determinants and indicators of soil quality. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.U.S. Congress. 1990. Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, pp. 3705–3706. Public Law 101–624. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
35.U.S. House of Representatives. 1988. Low-Input Farming Systems: Benefits and Barriers. House Report 100–1097. 74th Report, Committee on Government Operations. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
36.Visser, S., and Parkinson, D.. 1992. Soil biological criteria as indicators of soil quality: Microorganisms. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar