05.12.2015 Views

World’s Soil Resources

FAO-world_soils-report-COMPLETE

FAO-world_soils-report-COMPLETE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Status of the<br />

<strong>World’s</strong><br />

Main Report<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

© FAO | Giuseppe Bizzarri<br />

INTERGOVERNMENTAL<br />

TECHNICAL PANEL ON SOILS


Status of the<br />

<strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Main report<br />

Prepared by<br />

Intergovernmental Technical Panel on <strong>Soil</strong>s (ITPS)<br />

Luca Montanarella (Chair), Mohamed Badraoui, Victor Chude, Isaurinda Dos Santos Baptista Costa,<br />

Tekalign Mamo, Martin Yemefack, Milkha Singh Aulang, Kazuyuki Yagi, Suk Young Hong, Pisoot Vijarnsorn,<br />

Gan Lin Zhang, Dominique Arrouays, Helaina Black, Pavel Krasilnikov, Jaroslava Sobocá, Julio Alegre, Carlos<br />

Roberto Henriquez, Maria de Lourdes Mendonça-Santos, Miguel Taboada, David Espinosa Victoria, Abdullah<br />

Alshankiti, Sayed Kazem Alavi Panah, Elsiddig Ahmed El Mustafa El Sheikh, Jon Hempel, Dan Pennock, Marta<br />

Camps Arbestain, Neil McKenzie.<br />

Editorial board: Luca Montanarella (Chair), Victor Chude (Africa), Kazuyuki Yagi (Asia), Pavel Krasilnikov<br />

(Europe), Seyed Kazem Alavi Panah (Near East and North Africa), Maria de Lourdes Mendonça-Santos (Latin<br />

America and the Caribbean), Dan Pennock (North America), Neil McKenzie (SW Pacific).<br />

Managing editor: Freddy Nachtergaele<br />

Coordinating Lead Authors and Regional Coordinators/Authors:<br />

Mubarak Abdelrahman Abdalla, Seyed Kazem Alavipanah, André Bationo, Victor Chude, Juan Comerma, Maria<br />

Gerasimova, Jon Hempel, Srimathie Indraratne, Pavel Krasilnikov, Neil McKenzie, Maria de Lourdes Mendonça-<br />

Santos, Chencho Norbu, Ayo Ogunkunle, Dan Pennock, Thomas Reinsch, David Robinson, Pete Smith, Miguel<br />

Taboada and Kazuyuki Yagi.<br />

Reviewing Authors: Dominique Arrouays, Richard Bardgett, Marta Camps Arbestain, Tandra Fraser, Ciro<br />

Gardi, Neil McKenzie, Luca Montanarella, Dan Pennock and Diana Wall.<br />

Editorial team: Lucrezia Caon, Nicoletta Forlano, Cori Keene, Matteo Sala, Alexey Sorokin, Isabelle Verbeke,<br />

Christopher Ward.<br />

GSP Secretariat: Moujahed Achouri, Maryse Finka and Ronald Vargas.<br />

Other contributing Authors:<br />

Adams, Mary Beth<br />

Adhya Tapan, Kumar<br />

Agus, Fahmuddin<br />

Al Shankithi, Abdullah<br />

Alegre, Julio<br />

Aleman, Garcia<br />

Alfaro, Marta<br />

Alyabina, Irina<br />

Anderson, Chris<br />

Anjos, Lucia<br />

Arao, Tomohito<br />

Asakawa, Susumu<br />

Aulakh, Milkha<br />

Ayuke, Frederick<br />

Bai, Zhaohai<br />

Baldock, Jeff<br />

Balks, Megan<br />

Balyuk, Svyatoslav<br />

Bardgett, Richard<br />

Basiliko, Nathan<br />

Batkhishig, Ochirbat<br />

Bedard-Haughn, Angela<br />

Bielders, Charles<br />

Bock, Michael<br />

Bockheim, James<br />

Bondeau, Alberte<br />

Brinkman, Robert<br />

Bristow, Keith<br />

Broll, Gabrielle<br />

Bruulsma, Tom<br />

Bunning, Sally<br />

Bustamante, Mercedes<br />

Caon, Lucrezia<br />

Carating, Rodel<br />

Cerkowniak, Darrel<br />

Charzynski, Przemyslaw<br />

Clark, Joanna<br />

Clothier, Brent<br />

Coelho, Maurício Rizzato<br />

Colditz, Roland René<br />

Collins, Alison<br />

Compton, Jana<br />

Condron, Leo<br />

Corso, Maria Laura<br />

Cotrufo, Francesca<br />

Critchley, William<br />

Cruse, Richard<br />

da Silva, Manuela<br />

Dabney, Seth<br />

Daniels, Lee<br />

de Souza Dias, Moacir<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

II


Dick, Warren<br />

Dos Santos Baptista, Isaurinda<br />

Drury, Craig<br />

El Mustafa El Sheikh, Ahmed<br />

Elsiddig<br />

Elder-Ratutokarua, Maria<br />

Elliott, Jane<br />

Espinosa, David<br />

Fendorf, Scott<br />

Ferreira, Gustavo<br />

Flanagan, Dennis<br />

Gafurova, Laziza<br />

Gaistardo, Carlos Cruz<br />

Govers, Gerard<br />

Grayson, Sue<br />

Griffiths, Robert<br />

Grundy, Mike<br />

Hakki Emrah, Erdogan<br />

Hamrouni, Heidi<br />

Hanly, James<br />

Harper, Richard<br />

Harrison, Rob<br />

Havlicek, Elena<br />

Hempel, Jon<br />

Henriquez, Carlos Roberto<br />

Hewitt, Allan<br />

Hiederer, Roland<br />

House, Jo<br />

Huising, Jeroen<br />

Ibánez, Juan José<br />

Jain, Atul<br />

Jefwa, Joyce<br />

Jung, Kangho<br />

Kadono, Atsunobu<br />

Kawahigashi, Masayuki<br />

Kelliher, Frank<br />

Kihara, Job<br />

Konyushkova, Maria<br />

Kuikman, Peter<br />

Kuziev, Ramazan<br />

Lai, Shawntine<br />

Lal, Rattan<br />

Lamers, John<br />

Lee, Dar-Yuan<br />

Lee, Seung Heon<br />

Lehmann, Johannes<br />

Leys, John<br />

Lobb, David<br />

Ma, Lin<br />

Macias, Felipe<br />

Maina, Fredah<br />

Mamo, Tekalign<br />

Mantel, Stephan<br />

McDowell, Richard<br />

Medvedev, Vitaliy<br />

Miyazaki, Tsuyushi<br />

Moore, John<br />

Morrison, John<br />

Mung'atu, Joseph<br />

Muniz, Olegario<br />

Nachtergaele, Freddy<br />

Nanzyo, Masami<br />

Ndiaye, Déthié<br />

Neall, Vince<br />

Noroozi, Ali Akbar<br />

Obst, Carl<br />

Ogle, Stephen<br />

Okoth, Peter<br />

Omutu, Christian<br />

Or, Dani<br />

Owens, Phil<br />

Pan, Genxing<br />

Panagos, Panos<br />

Parikh, Sanjai<br />

Pasos Mabel, Susana (†)<br />

Paterson, Garry<br />

Paustian, Keith<br />

Pietragalla, Vanina<br />

Pla Sentis, Ildefonso<br />

Polizzotto, Matthew<br />

Pugh, Thomas<br />

Qureshi, Asad<br />

Reddy, Obi<br />

Reid, D. Keith<br />

Richter, Dan<br />

Rivera-Ferre, Marta<br />

Rodriguez Lado, Luis<br />

Roskruge, Rick<br />

Rumpel, Cornelia<br />

Rys, Gerald<br />

Schipper, Louis<br />

Schoknecht, Noel<br />

Seneviratne, Sonia<br />

Shahid, Shabbir<br />

Sheffield, Justin<br />

Sheppard, Steve<br />

Sidhu, Gurjant<br />

Sigbert, Huber<br />

Smith, Scott<br />

Sobocká, Jaroslava<br />

Sönmez, Bülent<br />

Spicer, Anne<br />

Sposito, Garrison<br />

Stolt, Mark<br />

Suarez, Don<br />

Takata, Yusuke<br />

Tarnocai, Charles<br />

Tassinari, Diego<br />

Tien, Tran Minh<br />

Toth, Tibor<br />

Trumbore, Susan<br />

Tuller, Markus<br />

Urquiaga Caballero, Segundo<br />

Urquiza Rodrigues, Nery<br />

Van Liedekerke, Marc<br />

Van Oost, Kristof<br />

Vargas, Rodrigo<br />

Vargas, Ronald<br />

Vela, Sebastian<br />

Vitaliy, Medvedev<br />

Vrscaj, Boris<br />

Waswa, Boaz<br />

Watanabe, Kazuhiko<br />

Watmough, Shaun<br />

Webb, Mike<br />

Weerahewa, Jeevika<br />

West, Paul<br />

Wiese, Liesl<br />

Wilding, Larry<br />

Xu, Renkou<br />

Yan, Xiaoyuan<br />

Yemefack, Martin<br />

Yokoyama, Kazunari<br />

Zhang, Fusuo<br />

Zhou, Dongme i<br />

Zobeck, Ted<br />

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS<br />

Rome, 2015<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

III


Disclaimer and copyright<br />

Recommended citation:<br />

FAO and ITPS. 2015.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> (SWSR) – Main Report.<br />

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations<br />

and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on <strong>Soil</strong>s, Rome, Italy<br />

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the<br />

expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United<br />

Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its<br />

authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.<br />

The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented,<br />

does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar<br />

nature that are not mentioned.<br />

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s)<br />

and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.<br />

ISBN 978-92-5-109004-6<br />

© FAO, 2015<br />

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except<br />

where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research<br />

and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate<br />

acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’<br />

views, products or services is not implied in any way.<br />

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be<br />

made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to copyright@fao.org.<br />

FAO information products are available on the FAO website www.fao.org/publications<br />

and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

IV


Table of contents<br />

Disclaimer and copyright | IV<br />

Table of contents | V<br />

Foreword | XIX<br />

Preface | Scope of The State of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | XXI<br />

Acknowledgment | XXII<br />

List of abbreviations | XXIV<br />

List of tables | XXXIII<br />

List of boxes | XXXIV<br />

List of figures | XXXV<br />

Preface | 1<br />

Global soil resources | 3<br />

1 | Introduction | 4<br />

1.1 | The World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter | 4<br />

1.2 | Basic concepts | 7<br />

Sustainable soil management | 8<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation and threats to soil functions | 8<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> functions and ecosystem services | 9<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s and natural capital | 9<br />

Planetary boundaries and safe operating space for humanity | 9<br />

Biodiversity | 10<br />

2 | The role of soils in ecosystem processes | 13<br />

2.1 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and the carbon cycle | 13<br />

2.1.1 | Quantitative amounts of organic C stored in soil | 14<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

V


2.1.2 | Nature and formation of soil organic C | 15<br />

2.1.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> C pools | 16<br />

2.1.4 | Factors influencing soil C storage | 17<br />

2.1.5 | Carbon cycle: knowledge gaps and research needs | 18<br />

2.1.6 | Concluding remarks | 18<br />

2.2 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and the nutrient cycle | 18<br />

2.2.1 | The nutrient cycle: knowledge gaps and research needs | 21<br />

2.3 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and the water cycle | 21<br />

2.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> as a habitat for organisms and a genetic pool | 24<br />

3 | Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | 31<br />

3.1 | The evolution of soil definitions | 31<br />

3.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> definitions in different soil classification systems | 32<br />

3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong>s, landscapes and pedodiversity | 32<br />

3.4 | Properties of the soil | 33<br />

3.5 | Global soil maps | 33<br />

3.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> qualities essential for the provision of ecosystem services | 34<br />

3.6.1 | Inherent soil fertility | 35<br />

3.6.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> moisture qualities and limitations | 37<br />

3.6.3 | <strong>Soil</strong>s properties and climate change | 37<br />

3.6.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility and water erosion | 38<br />

3.6.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> workability | 39<br />

3.6.6 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and ecosystem goods and services | 40<br />

3.7 | Global assessments of soil change - a history | 43<br />

3.7.1 | GLASOD: expert opinion | 43<br />

3.7.2 | LADA-GLADIS: the ecosystem approach | 45<br />

3.7.3 | Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | 46<br />

4 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans | 50<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

VI


4.1 | Current land cover and land use | 50<br />

4.2 | Historical land cover and land use change | 53<br />

4.3 | Interactions between soils, land use and management | 54<br />

4.3.1 | Land use change and soil degradation | 54<br />

4.3.2 | Land use intensity change | 60<br />

4.3.3 | Land use change resulting in irreversible soil change | 65<br />

4.4 | Atmospheric deposition | 72<br />

4.4.1 | Atmospheric deposition | 72<br />

4.4.2 | Main atmospheric pollutants: Synopsis of current state of knowledge | 73<br />

4.4.3 | Knowledge gaps and research needs | 76<br />

Global <strong>Soil</strong> Change Drivers, Status and Trends | 88<br />

5 | Drivers of global soil change | 89<br />

5.1 | Population growth and urbanization | 89<br />

5.1.1 | Population dynamics | 89<br />

5.1.2 | Urbanization | 91<br />

5.2 | Education, cultural values and social equity | 91<br />

5.3 | Marketing land | 92<br />

5.4 | Economic growth | 94<br />

5.5 | War and civil strife | 94<br />

5.6 | Climate change | 96<br />

6 | Global soil status, processes and trends | 100<br />

6.1.1 | Processes | 100<br />

6.1.2 | Status of <strong>Soil</strong> Erosion | 101<br />

6.1.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion versus soil formation | 103<br />

6.1.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility | 104<br />

6.1.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and agriculture | 104<br />

6.1.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and the environment | 105<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

VII


6.1.7 | Effects of hydrology and water | 106<br />

6.1.8 | Vegetation effects | 107<br />

6.1.9 | Alteration of nutrient and dust cycling | 107<br />

6.1.10 | Trends in soil erosion | 108<br />

6.1.11 | Conclusions | 108<br />

6.2 | Global soil organic carbon status and trends | 109<br />

6.2.1 | Introduction | 109<br />

6.2.2 | Estimates of global soil organic carbon stocks | 109<br />

6.2.3 | Spatial distribution of SOC | 111<br />

6.2.4 | Spatial distribution of carbon in biomass | 113<br />

6.2.5 | Distribution of terrestrial carbon pool by vegetation class | 114<br />

6.2.6 | Historic trends in soil carbon stocks | 116<br />

6.2.7 | Future loss of SOC under climate change | 118<br />

6.2.8 | Conclusions | 118<br />

6.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination status and trends | 119<br />

6.3.1 | Introduction | 119<br />

6.3.2 | Global status of soil contamination | 119<br />

6.3.3 | Trends and legislation | 121<br />

6.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification status and trends | 122<br />

6.4.1 | Processes and causes of acidification | 122<br />

6.4.2 | Impact of soil acidification | 123<br />

6.4.3 | Responses to soil acidification | 123<br />

6.4.4 | Global status and trends of soil acidification | 123<br />

6.5 | Global status of soil salinization and sodification | 124<br />

6.5.1 | Status and extent | 124<br />

6.5.2 | Causes of soil salinity | 126<br />

6.5.4 | Trends and impacts | 126<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

VIII


6.5.5 | Responses | 126<br />

6.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity status and trends | 127<br />

6.6.1 | Introduction | 127<br />

6.6.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> biota and land use | 128<br />

6.6.3 | Conclusions | 129<br />

6.7 | <strong>Soil</strong> sealing: status and trends | 130<br />

6.8 | <strong>Soil</strong> nutrient balance changes: status and trends | 132<br />

6.8.1 | Introduction | 132<br />

6.8.2 | Principles and components of soil nutrient balance calculations | 133<br />

6.8.3 | Nutrient budgets: a matter of spatial scale | 134<br />

6.8.4 | Nutrient budgets: a matter of land use system, land use type,<br />

managementand household equity | 135<br />

6.8.5 | What does the future hold? | 136<br />

6.9 | <strong>Soil</strong> compaction status and trends | 137<br />

6.9.1 | Effect of tillage systems on compaction | 138<br />

6.9.2 | What is the extent of deep soil compaction? | 139<br />

6.9.3 | Solutions to soil compaction problems | 139<br />

6.10 | Global soil-water quantity and quality: status, processes and trends | 140<br />

6.10.1 | Processes | 140<br />

6.10.2 | Quantifying soil moisture | 142<br />

6.10.3 | Status and trends | 143<br />

6.10.4 | Hotspots of pressures on soil moisture | 144<br />

6.10.5 | Conclusions | 146<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> change: impacts and responses | 168<br />

7 | The impact of soil change on ecosystem services | 169<br />

7.1 | Introduction | 169<br />

7.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and food security | 172<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

IX


7.2.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion | 175<br />

7.2.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> sealing | 178<br />

7.2.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination | 178<br />

7.2.4 | Acidification | 178<br />

7.2.5 | Salinization | 178<br />

7.2.6 | Compaction | 179<br />

7.2.7 | Nutrient imbalance | 179<br />

7.2.8 | Changes to soil organic carbon and soil biodiversity | 179<br />

7.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and climate regulation | 181<br />

7.3.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> carbon | 181<br />

7.3.2 | Nitrous oxide emissions | 183<br />

7.3.3 | Methane emissions | 184<br />

7.3.4 | Heat and moisture transfer | 185<br />

7.4 | Air quality regulation | 188<br />

7.4.2 | Ammonia emissions | 188<br />

7.4.3 | Aerosols | 188<br />

7.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and water quality regulation | 189<br />

7.5.1 | Nitrogen and phosphorous retention and transformation | 190<br />

7.5.2 | Acidification buffering | 191<br />

7.5.3 | Filtering of reused grey water | 192<br />

7.5.4 | Processes impacting service provision | 192<br />

7.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and water quantity regulation | 194<br />

7.6.2 | Precipitation interception by soils | 194<br />

7.6.3 | Surface water regulation | 195<br />

7.7 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and natural hazard regulation | 195<br />

7.7.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> landslide hazard | 197<br />

7.7.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> hazard due to earthquakes | 198<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

X


7.7.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> and drought hazard | 198<br />

7.7.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> and flood hazard | 199<br />

7.7.5 | Hazards induced by thawing of permafrost soil | 199<br />

7.8 | <strong>Soil</strong> biota regulation | 199<br />

7.9 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and human health regulation | 201<br />

7.10 | <strong>Soil</strong> and cultural services | 203<br />

8 | Governance and policy responses to soil change | 223<br />

8.2 | <strong>Soil</strong>s as part of global natural resources management | 224<br />

8.2.1 | Historical context | 224<br />

8.2.2 | Global agreements relating to soils | 225<br />

8.3 | National and regional soil policies | 228<br />

8.3.1 | Sustainable soil management – criteria and supporting practices | 228<br />

8.3.2 | Education about soil and land use | 229<br />

8.3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> research, development and extension | 229<br />

8.3.4 | Private benefits, public goods and payments for ecosystem services | 229<br />

8.3.5 | Intergenerational equity | 230<br />

8.3.6 | Land degradation and conflict | 230<br />

8.4 | Regional soil policies | 231<br />

8.4.1 | Africa | 231<br />

8.4.2 | Asia | 232<br />

8.4.3 | Europe | 232<br />

8.4.4 | Eurasia | 232<br />

8.4.5 | Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) | 233<br />

8.4.6 | The Near East and North Africa (NENA) | 233<br />

8.4.7 | North America | 234<br />

8.4.8 | Southwest Pacific | 234<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XI


8.5 | Information systems, accounting and forecasting | 235<br />

8.5.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> information for markets | 236<br />

8.5.2 | Environmental accounting | 236<br />

8.5.3 | Assessments of the soil resource | 237<br />

9 | Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes in Africa South of the Sahara | 242<br />

9.1 | Introduction | 243<br />

9.2 | Stratification of the Region | 244<br />

9.2.1 | Arid zone | 244<br />

9.2.2 | Semi-arid zone | 246<br />

9.2.3 | Sub-humid zone | 246<br />

9.2.5 | Highlands zone | 247<br />

9.3 | General soil threats in the region | 247<br />

9.3.1 | Erosion by water and wind | 247<br />

9.3.2 | Loss of soil organic matter | 248<br />

9.3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> nutrient depletion | 249<br />

9.3.4 | Loss of soil biodiversity | 250<br />

9.3.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination and pollution | 251<br />

9.3.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification | 252<br />

9.3.7 | Salinization and sodification | 252<br />

9.3.8 | Waterlogging | 252<br />

9.3.9 | Compaction, crusting and sealing | 252<br />

9.4 | The most important soil threats in Sub-Saharan Africa | 253<br />

9.4.1 | Erosion by water and wind | 254<br />

9.4.2 | Loss of soil organic matter | 258<br />

9.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> nutrient depletion | 260<br />

9.5 | Case studies | 263<br />

9.5.1 | Senegal | 263<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XII


9.5.2 | South Africa | 266<br />

9.6 | Summary of conclusions and recommendations | 275<br />

10 | Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Change in Asia | 287<br />

10.1 | Introduction | 288<br />

10.2. Stratification of the region | 288<br />

10.2. 1 | Climate and agro-ecology | 288<br />

10.2.2 | Previous regional soil assessments | 289<br />

10.3 | General threats to soils in the region | 291<br />

10.3.1 | Erosion by wind and water | 291<br />

10.3.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change | 291<br />

10.3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination | 291<br />

10.3.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification | 293<br />

10.3.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization and sodification | 293<br />

10.3.6 | Loss of soil biodiversity | 294<br />

10.3.7 | Waterlogging | 295<br />

10.3.8 | Nutrient imbalance | 295<br />

10.3.9 | Compaction | 296<br />

10.3.10 | Sealing and capping | 297<br />

10.4 | Major threats to soils in the region | 297<br />

10.4.1 | Erosion | 297<br />

10.4.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change | 299<br />

10.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization and sodification | 301<br />

10.4.4 | Nitrogen imbalance | 302<br />

10.5 | Case studies | 304<br />

10.5.1 | Case study for India | 304<br />

10.5.2 | Case study for Indonesia | 307<br />

10.5.3 | Case study for Japan | 310<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XIII


10.5.4 | Case study of greenhouse gas emissions from paddy fields | 314<br />

10.6 | Conclusion | 315<br />

11 | Regional assessment of soil changes in Europe and Eurasia | 330<br />

11.1 | Introduction | 331<br />

11.2 | Stratification of the region | 331<br />

11.3 | General threats to soils in the region | 335<br />

11.4. Major threats to soils in Europe and Eurasia | 338<br />

11.4.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination | 338<br />

11.4.2 | Sealing and capping | 339<br />

11.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter decline | 339<br />

11.4.4 | Salinization and sodification | 341<br />

11.5 | Case studies | 344<br />

11.5.1 | Case study: Austria | 344<br />

11.5.2 | Case study: Ukraine | 350<br />

11.5.3 | Case study: Uzbekistan | 353<br />

11.6 | Conclusion | 356<br />

12 | Regional assessment of soil changes in Latin America and the Caribbean | 364<br />

12.1 | Introduction | 365<br />

12.2 | Biomes, ecoregions and general soil threats in the region. | 366<br />

12.3. General soil threats in the region | 371<br />

12.3.1 | Erosion by water and wind | 371<br />

12.3.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change | 372<br />

12.3.3 | Salinization and sodification | 372<br />

12.3.4 | Nutrient imbalance | 372<br />

12.3.5 | Loss of soil biodiversity | 372<br />

12.3.6 | Compaction | 373<br />

12.3.7 | Waterlogging | 373<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XIV


12.3.8 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification | 373<br />

12.3.9 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination | 373<br />

12.3.10 | Sealing | 373<br />

12.4 | Major threats to soils | 374<br />

12.4.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion | 374<br />

12.4.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change | 375<br />

12.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization | 380<br />

12.5 | Case studies | 382<br />

12.5.1 | Argentina | 382<br />

12.5.2 | Cuba | 386<br />

12.6 | Conclusions and recommendations | 388<br />

13 | Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes in the Near East and North Africa | 399<br />

13.1 | Introduction | 400<br />

13.2 | Major land use systems in the Near East and North Africa | 402<br />

13.3 | Major threats to soils in the region | 404<br />

13.3.1 | Erosion | 404<br />

13.3.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change | 406<br />

13.3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination | 406<br />

13.3.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification | 406<br />

13.3.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization/sodification | 407<br />

13.3.6 | Loss of soil biodiversity | 407<br />

13.3.7 Waterlogging | 408<br />

13.3.8 | Nutrient balance change | 408<br />

13.3.9 | Compaction | 409<br />

13.3.10 | Sealing/capping | 409<br />

13.4 | Major soil threats in the region | 411<br />

13.4.1 | Water and wind erosion | 411<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XV


13.4.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization/sodification | 416<br />

13.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change | 417<br />

13.4.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination | 420<br />

13.5 | Case studies | 423<br />

13.5.1 | Case study: Iran | 423<br />

13.6.2 | Case Study: Tunisia | 426<br />

13.6 | Conclusions | 430<br />

14 | Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes in North America | 442<br />

14.1 | Introduction | 443<br />

14.2 | Regional stratification and soil threats | 443<br />

14.2.1 | Regional stratification and land cover | 443<br />

14.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> threats | 447<br />

14.3.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification | 447<br />

14.3.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination | 448<br />

14.3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization | 450<br />

14.3.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> sealing/capping | 452<br />

14.3.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> compaction | 453<br />

14.3.6 | Waterlogging and wetlands | 454<br />

14.4 | Major soil threats | 454<br />

14.4.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion | 455<br />

14.4.2 | Nutrient imbalance | 456<br />

14.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change | 457<br />

14.4.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity | 459<br />

14.5 | Case study: Canada | 460<br />

14.5.1 | Water and wind erosion | 460<br />

14.5.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change | 463<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XVI


14.5.4 | Nutrient imbalance | 464<br />

14.6 | Conclusions and recommendations | 467<br />

15 | Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Change in the Southwest Pacific | 476<br />

15.1 | Introduction | 477<br />

15.2 | The major land types in the region | 477<br />

15.3 | Climate | 480<br />

15.4 | Land use | 480<br />

15.4.1 | Historical context | 480<br />

15.4.2 | Nineteenth and twentieth centuries | 481<br />

15.4.3 | Contemporary land-use dynamics | 482<br />

15.5 | Threats to soils in the region | 485<br />

15.5.1 | Erosion by wind and water | 485<br />

15.5.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change | 487<br />

15.5.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination | 490<br />

15.5.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification | 492<br />

15.5.3 | Salinization and sodification | 494<br />

15.5.4 | Loss of soil biodiversity | 495<br />

15.5.5 | Waterlogging | 496<br />

15.5.6 | Nutrient imbalance | 496<br />

15.5.7 | Compaction | 497<br />

15.5.8 | Sealing and capping | 498<br />

15.6 | Case studies | 498<br />

15.6.1 | Case study one: Intensification of land use in New Zealand | 498<br />

15.6.3 | Case study two: <strong>Soil</strong> management challenges in southwest Western<br />

Australia | 500<br />

15.6.2 | Case study three: Atoll Islands in the Pacific | 504<br />

15.6.4 | Case study four: DustWatch – an integrated response to wind erosion in<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XVII


Australia | 505<br />

15.7 | Conclusions | 507<br />

16 | Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Change in Antarctica | 520<br />

16.1 | Antarctic soils and environment | 521<br />

16.2 | Pressures/threats for the Antarctic soil environment | 521<br />

16.3 | Response | 523<br />

Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics, distribution and ecosystem services | 527<br />

1 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with organic layers | 528<br />

2 | <strong>Soil</strong>s showing a strong human influence | 530<br />

3 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with limitations to root growth | 534<br />

4 | <strong>Soil</strong>s distinguished by Fe/Al chemistry | 544<br />

5 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with accumulation of organic matter in the topsoil | 561<br />

6 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with accumulation of moderately soluble salts | 569<br />

7 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with a clay-enriched subsoil | 575<br />

8 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with little or no profile development | 585<br />

9 | Permanently flooded soils | 593<br />

Glossary of technical terms | 599<br />

Authors and affiliations | 602<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XVIII


Foreword<br />

This document presents the first major global assessment ever on soils and related issues.<br />

Why was such an assessment not carried out before? We have taken soils for granted for a long time.<br />

Nevertheless, soils are the foundation of food production and food security, supplying plants with nutrients,<br />

water, and support for their roots. <strong>Soil</strong>s function as Earth’s largest water filter and storage tank; they contain<br />

more carbon than all above-ground vegetation, hence regulating emissions of carbon dioxide and other<br />

greenhouse gases; and they host a tremendous diversity of organisms of key importance to ecosystem<br />

processes.<br />

However, we have been witnessing a reversal in attitudes, especially in light of serious concerns expressed by<br />

soil practitioners in all regions about the severe threats to this natural resource. In this more auspicious context,<br />

when the international community is fully recognizing the need for concerted action , the Intergovernmental<br />

Technical Panel on <strong>Soil</strong>s (ITPS), the main scientific advisory body to the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership (GSP) hosted by<br />

the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), took the initiative to prepare this much<br />

needed assessment.<br />

The issuance of this first “Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>” report was most appropriately timed with the<br />

occasion of the International Year of <strong>Soil</strong>s (2015) declared by the General Assembly of the United Nations. It was<br />

made possible by the commitment and contributions of hosts of reputed soil scientists and their institutions.<br />

Our gratitude goes to the Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Editors and Reviewers who have participated<br />

in this effort, and in particular to the Chairperson of the ITPS, for his dedicated guidance and close follow up.<br />

Many governments have supported the participation of their resident scientists in the process and<br />

contributed resources, thus also assuring the participation of experts from developing countries and countries<br />

with economies in transition. In addition, a Technical Summary was acknowledged by representatives of<br />

governments assembled in the Plenary Assembly of the GSP, signaling their appreciation of the many potential<br />

uses of the underlying report. Even more comprehensive and inclusive arrangements will be sought in the<br />

preparations of further, updated versions.<br />

The report is aimed at scientists, laymen and policy makers alike. It provides in particular an essential<br />

benchmark against periodical assessment and reporting of soil functions and overall soil health at global<br />

and regional levels. This is of particular relevance to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that the<br />

international community pledged to achieve. Indeed, these goals can only be achieved if the crucial natural<br />

resources – of which soils is one – are sustainably managed.<br />

The main message of this first edition is that, while there is cause for optimism in some regions, the majority<br />

of the world’s soil resources are in only fair, poor or very poor condition. Today, 33 percent of land is moderately<br />

to highly degraded due to the erosion, salinization, compaction, acidification and chemical pollution of soils.<br />

Further loss of productive soils would severely damage food production and food security, amplify food-price<br />

volatility, and potentially plunge millions of people into hunger and poverty. But the report also offers evidence<br />

that this loss of soil resources and functions can be avoided. Sustainable soil management, using scientific<br />

and local knowledge and evidence-based, proven approaches and technologies, can increase nutritious food<br />

supply, provide a valuable lever for climate regulation and safeguarding ecosystem services.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XIX


We can expect that the extensive analytical contents of this report will greatly assist in galvanizing action<br />

at all levels towards sustainable soil management, also in line with the recommendations contained in the<br />

updated World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter and as a firm contribution to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.<br />

We are proud to make this very first edition of the Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> report available for<br />

the international community, and reiterate once again our commitment to a world free of poverty, hunger<br />

and malnutrition.<br />

JOSÉ GRAZIANO DA SILVA<br />

FAO Director-General<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XX


Preface | Scope of The State of the<br />

<strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

The main objectives of The State of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> are: (a) to provide a global scientific<br />

assessment of current and projected soil conditions built on regional data analysis and expertise; (b) to<br />

explore the implications of these soil conditions for food security, climate change, water quality and quantity,<br />

biodiversity, and human health and wellbeing; and (c) to conclude with a series of recommendations for action<br />

by policymakers and other stakeholders.<br />

The book is divided into two parts. The first part deals with global soil issues (Chapters 1 to 8). This is<br />

followed by a more specific assessment of regional soil change, covering in turn Africa South of the Sahara,<br />

Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near East and North Africa, North America, the Southwest<br />

Pacific and Antarctica. (Chapters 9 to 16). The technical and executive summaries are published separately.<br />

In Chapter 1 the principles of the World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter are discussed, including guidelines for stakeholders to<br />

ensure that soils are managed sustainably and that degraded soils are rehabilitated or restored. For long, soil<br />

was considered almost exclusively in the context of food production. However, with the increasing impact of<br />

humans on the environment, the connections between soil and broader environmental concerns have been<br />

made and new and innovative ways of relating soils to people have begun to emerge in the past two decades.<br />

Societal issues such as food security, sustainability, climate change, carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas<br />

emissions, and degradation through erosion and loss of organic matter and nutrients are all closely related<br />

to the soil resource. These ecosystem services provided by the soil and the soil functions that support these<br />

services are central to the discussion in the report.<br />

In Chapter 2 synergies and trade-offs are reviewed, together with the role of soils in supporting ecosystem<br />

services, and their role in underpinning natural capital. The discussion then covers knowledge - and knowledge<br />

gaps - on the role of soils in the carbon, nitrogen and water cycles, and on the role of soils as a habitat for<br />

organisms and as a genetic pool. This is followed in Chapter 3 by an overview of the diversity of global soil<br />

resources and of the way they have been assessed in the past. Chapter 4 reviews the various anthropogenic<br />

and natural pressures - in particular, land use and soil management – which cause chemical, physical and<br />

biological variations in soils and the consequent changes in environmental services assured by those soils.<br />

Land use and soil management are in turn largely determined by socio-economic conditions. These<br />

conditions are the subject of Chapter 5, which discusses in particular the role of population dynamics, market<br />

access, education and cultural values as well as the wealth or poverty of the land users. Climate change and<br />

its anticipated effects on soils are also discussed in this chapter.<br />

Chapter 6 discusses the current global status and trends of the major soil processes threatening ecosystem<br />

services. These include soil erosion, soil organic carbon loss, soil contamination, soil acidification, soil<br />

salinization, soil biodiversity loss, soil surface effects, soil nutrient status, soil compaction and soil moisture<br />

conditions.<br />

Chapter 7 undertakes an assessment of the ways in which soil change is likely to impact on soil functions<br />

and the likely consequences for ecosystem service delivery. Each subsection in this chapter outlines key soil<br />

processes involved with the delivery of goods and services and how these are changing. The subsections<br />

then review how these changes affect soil function and the soil’s contribution to ecosystem service delivery.<br />

The discussion is organized according to the reporting categories of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,<br />

including provisioning, supporting, regulating and cultural services.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXI


Chapter 8 of the report explores policy, institutional and land use management options and responses to<br />

soil changes that are available to governments and land users.<br />

The regional assessments in Chapters 9 to 16 follow a standard outline: after a brief description of the main<br />

biophysical features of each region, the status and trends of each major soil threat are discussed. Each chapter<br />

ends with one or more national case studies of soil change and a table summarizing the results, including the<br />

status and trends of soil changes in the region and related uncertainties.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXII


Acknowledgments<br />

The Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> report was made possible by the commitment and voluntary work<br />

of the world’s leading soil scientists and the institutions they are affiliated with. We would like to express<br />

our gratitude to all the Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Review Editors<br />

and Reviewers. We would also like to thank the editorial staff and the GSP Secretariat for their dedication in<br />

coordinating the production of this first seminal report.<br />

Appreciation is expressed to many Governments who have supported the participation of their resident<br />

scientists in this major enterprise. In particular, our gratitude to the European Commission who financially<br />

supported the development and publication of this report.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXIII


List of abbreviations<br />

AAFC<br />

ACSAD<br />

AD<br />

AEZ<br />

AFES<br />

AFSIS<br />

AGES<br />

AGRA<br />

AKST<br />

ALOS<br />

AMA<br />

AMF<br />

ANC<br />

AOAD<br />

AOT<br />

APO-FFTC<br />

ARC<br />

ASGM<br />

ASI<br />

ASP<br />

ASSOD<br />

AU<br />

BASE<br />

BC<br />

BD<br />

BDP<br />

BIH<br />

BMLFUW<br />

BNF<br />

BOM<br />

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada<br />

Arab Centre for the Study of Arid Zones and Dry Lands<br />

Anno Domini<br />

Agro-Ecological Zones<br />

Association Française Pour L’étude Du Sol<br />

African <strong>Soil</strong> Information Service<br />

Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety<br />

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa<br />

Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology<br />

Advanced Land Observation Satellite<br />

Agencia De Medio Ambiente<br />

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi<br />

Acid-Neutralising Capacity<br />

Arab Organization for Agricultural Development<br />

Aerosol Optical Thickness<br />

Asian Productivity Organization- Food & Fertilizer Technology Center<br />

Agricultural Research Council<br />

Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining<br />

Advanced Science Institutesseries<br />

Asia <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership<br />

Assessment of Human-Induced <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation in South and Southeast Asia<br />

African Union<br />

Biome of Australia <strong>Soil</strong> Environments<br />

(1) Black Carbon; (2) Before Christ<br />

Biodiversity<br />

Bureau for Development Policy<br />

Bosnia And Herzegovina<br />

Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management<br />

Biological Nitrogen Fixing<br />

Bureau of Meteorology<br />

BP Before Present (1 January 1950)<br />

C:N<br />

CA<br />

CAAA<br />

CAADP<br />

Carbon To Nitrogen Ratio<br />

Conservation Agriculture<br />

Clean Air Act Amendments<br />

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXIV


CACILM<br />

CAMRE<br />

CAZRI<br />

CBD<br />

CBM-CFS<br />

CCAFS<br />

CCME<br />

CE<br />

CEC<br />

CECS<br />

CEPAL<br />

CF<br />

CGIAR<br />

CIAT<br />

CIFOR<br />

CITMA<br />

CLIMSOIL<br />

CLM<br />

Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management<br />

Council of Arab Ministers Responsible For the Environment<br />

Central Arid Zone Research Institute<br />

Convention on Biological Diversity<br />

Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector<br />

Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security<br />

Canadian Council Of Ministers of the Environment<br />

Common Era (Also Current era or Christian era)<br />

(1) Cation Exchange Capacity; (2) Commission of the European Communities<br />

Chemicals of Emerging Concern<br />

Comisión Económica Para América Latina Y El Caribe<br />

Commercial Farming<br />

Global Agricultural Research Partnership<br />

International Center for Tropical Agriculture<br />

Center for International Forestry Research<br />

Ministerio De Ciencia, Tecnologia Y Medio Ambiente<br />

Review of Existing Information on the Interrelations between <strong>Soil</strong> and Climate Change<br />

Contaminated Land Management<br />

CMIP 5 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5<br />

COM<br />

CONABIO<br />

CONAFOR<br />

COSMOS<br />

CRC<br />

CRP<br />

CSA<br />

CSIF-SLM<br />

CSIRO<br />

CSM-BGBD<br />

CSSRI<br />

CSWCR&TI<br />

DAFWA<br />

DBC<br />

DDT<br />

DEA<br />

DECA<br />

DED<br />

DENR<br />

Commission Working Documents<br />

Comision Nacional Para El Conocimiento Y Uso De La Biodiversidad<br />

Comisión Nacional Forestal<br />

Cosmic-Ray <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Observing System<br />

Risk of Colorectal Cancer<br />

Conservation Reserve Program<br />

Climate-Smart Agriculture<br />

Country Strategic Investment Framework for Sustainable Land Management<br />

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation<br />

Conservation and Sustainable Management of Below-Ground Biodiversity<br />

The Central <strong>Soil</strong> Salinity Research Institute<br />

Central <strong>Soil</strong> & Water Conservation Research & Training Institute (India)<br />

Department Of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia<br />

Dissolved Black Carbon<br />

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane<br />

Deliberate Evacuation Area<br />

Department Of Environment and Conservation, Australia<br />

Dust Event Days<br />

Department Of Environment and Natural <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXV


DEST<br />

DGVMS<br />

DIC<br />

DLDD<br />

DNA<br />

DOC<br />

DOI<br />

DPYC<br />

DSEWPAC<br />

DSI<br />

DSMW<br />

EA-20km<br />

EAD<br />

EC DG ENV<br />

EC<br />

EEA<br />

EEAA<br />

EEZ<br />

ELD<br />

EM-DAT<br />

ENSO<br />

EOLSS<br />

EPA CERCLIS<br />

EPA<br />

ERW<br />

ES<br />

ESA<br />

ESAFS<br />

ESCWA<br />

ESDB<br />

ESP<br />

ESRI<br />

EU SCAR<br />

EU<br />

FAO<br />

FAOSTAT<br />

FAO-WRB<br />

Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training<br />

Dynamic Global Vegetation Models<br />

Dissolved Inorganic Carbon<br />

Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought<br />

Deoxyribonucleic Acid<br />

Dissolved Organic Carbon<br />

Digital Object Identifier<br />

Dissolved Pyrogenic Carbon<br />

Department Of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities<br />

Dust Storm Index<br />

Digital <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World<br />

Twenty Km Evacuation Area<br />

Environment Agency Abu Dhabi<br />

European Commission Directorate-General for Environment<br />

European Commission<br />

European Environment Agency<br />

Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency<br />

Exclusive Economic Zone<br />

Economics of Land Degradation<br />

Emergency Events Database<br />

El Niño Southern Oscillation<br />

Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems<br />

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Comprehensive Environmental<br />

Response, Contamination and Liability Information System<br />

United States Environmental Protection Agency<br />

Explosive Remnants of War<br />

Ecosystem Services<br />

United Nations Economic and Social Affairs Department<br />

East and Southeast Asia Federation of <strong>Soil</strong> Science Societies<br />

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia<br />

European <strong>Soil</strong> Database<br />

Exchangeable Sodium Percentage<br />

Environmental Systems Research Institute<br />

European Standing Committee on Agricultural Research<br />

European Union<br />

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations<br />

Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database<br />

Food and Agriculture Organization World Reference Base<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXVI


FDNPS<br />

FFS<br />

FIA<br />

FSI<br />

FSR<br />

GAP<br />

GDP<br />

GEF<br />

GEO<br />

GHG<br />

GIS<br />

GIZ<br />

GLADA<br />

GLADIS<br />

GLASOD<br />

GLC 2000<br />

GLC-SHARE<br />

GLRD<br />

GRACE<br />

GRID<br />

GSBI<br />

GSM<br />

GSP<br />

HORTNZ<br />

HTAP<br />

HWSD<br />

HYDE<br />

IAASTD<br />

IAATO<br />

ICAR<br />

ICARDA<br />

ICBA<br />

ICBL<br />

ICRAF<br />

IDP<br />

IFA<br />

IFAD<br />

Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Station<br />

Farmer Field School<br />

Forest Inventory and Analysis<br />

Forest Survey in India<br />

Fund-Service-<strong>Resources</strong><br />

Southeast Anatolia Development Project Region<br />

Gross Domestic Product<br />

Global Environment Facility<br />

Global Environmental Outlook<br />

Greenhouse Gases<br />

Geographic Information System<br />

Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Gmbh<br />

Global Land Degradation Assessment<br />

Global Land Degradation Information System<br />

Global Assessment of Human-Induced <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation<br />

Global Land Cover 2000 Project<br />

Global Land Cover SHARE<br />

Gender and Land Rights Database<br />

Gravity Recover and Climate Experiment<br />

Global Resource Information Database<br />

Global <strong>Soil</strong> Biodiversity Initiative<br />

Global <strong>Soil</strong> Map<br />

Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership<br />

Horticulture New Zealand<br />

Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution<br />

Harmonized World <strong>Soil</strong> Database<br />

History Database of the Global Environment<br />

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for<br />

Development<br />

International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators<br />

Indian Council of Agricultural Research<br />

International Center for Agriculture Research In The Dry Areas<br />

International Center for Biosaline Agriculture<br />

International Campaign to Ban Landmines<br />

International Center for Research in Agroforestry<br />

Internally Displaced Peoples<br />

International Fertilizers Association<br />

International Fund for Agricultural Development<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXVII


IFADATA<br />

IFPRI<br />

IGT-AMA<br />

IIASA<br />

ILCA<br />

IMAGE<br />

IMBE<br />

IMF<br />

IMK-IFU<br />

INIA<br />

IPBES<br />

IPCC<br />

IRENA<br />

IROWC-N<br />

IROWC-P<br />

ISA<br />

ISAM<br />

ISBN<br />

ISCO<br />

ISCW<br />

ISFM<br />

ISO<br />

ISRIC<br />

ISS-CAS<br />

ISSS<br />

ITPS<br />

IUSS<br />

IW<br />

JRC<br />

LAC<br />

LADA<br />

LCCS<br />

LD<br />

LDCS<br />

LPFN<br />

LPJ-GUESS<br />

LRTAP<br />

LS<br />

International Fertilizer Industry Association Database<br />

International Food Policy Research Institute<br />

Instituto De Geografía Tropical Y La Agencia De Medio Ambiente<br />

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis<br />

International Livestock Centre for Africa<br />

Integrated Modelling Of Global Environmental Change<br />

Mediterranean Istitute of Biodiversity and Ecology<br />

International Monetary Fund<br />

Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research Atmospheric Environmental Research<br />

Instituto De Investigaciones Agropecuarias (Chile)<br />

Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services<br />

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<br />

International Renewable Energy Agency<br />

The Indicator of Risk of Water Contamination by Nitrogen<br />

Indicator of Risk of Water Contamination by Phosphorus<br />

Impervious Surface Area<br />

Integrated Impacts of Climate Change Model<br />

International Standard Book Number<br />

International <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation Organization<br />

Institute for <strong>Soil</strong>, Climate and Water<br />

Integrated <strong>Soil</strong> Fertility Management<br />

International Standards Organization<br />

International <strong>Soil</strong> Reference and Information Centre<br />

Institute of <strong>Soil</strong> Science – Chinese Academy of Sciences<br />

International Society for the Systems Sciences<br />

Intergovernmental Technical Panel on <strong>Soil</strong>s<br />

International Union of <strong>Soil</strong> Sciences<br />

International Waters<br />

Joint Research Centre (European Commission)<br />

Latin America and the Caribbean<br />

Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands<br />

Land Cover Classification System<br />

Land Degradation<br />

Least Developed Countries<br />

the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature<br />

Lund-Potsdam-Jena General Ecosystem Simulator<br />

Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution<br />

Topographic Factors<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXVIII


LU<br />

MA<br />

MADRPM<br />

MAF<br />

MAFF<br />

MDBA<br />

MDGS<br />

MENARID<br />

MGAP<br />

MNP<br />

MODIS<br />

NAAS<br />

NAIP<br />

NAMA<br />

NAP<br />

NAPA<br />

NBSAP<br />

NBSS&LUP<br />

NDVI<br />

NENA<br />

NEPAD<br />

NEST<br />

NGO<br />

NISF<br />

NLWRA<br />

NOAA<br />

AVHRR<br />

NPK<br />

NPL<br />

NRC<br />

NRCAN<br />

NREL<br />

NRI<br />

NRM<br />

NRSA<br />

NSW<br />

NT<br />

NUE<br />

Land Use<br />

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />

Ministère De l’Agriculture Du Développement Rural et Des Pêches Maritimes<br />

New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry<br />

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery of Japan<br />

Murray–Darling Basin Authority (Australia)<br />

Millennium Development Goals<br />

Integrated Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Management in the Middle East And North Africa<br />

Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries<br />

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency<br />

Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer<br />

National Academy of Agricultural Sciences of India<br />

National Agricultural Investment Plan<br />

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action<br />

(1) National Action Programme; (2) National Action Plan<br />

National Adaptation Programme of Action<br />

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan<br />

National Bureau Of <strong>Soil</strong> Survey And Land Use Planning<br />

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index<br />

Near East And North Africa Region<br />

The New Partnership for Africa’s Development<br />

Nigerian Environmental Study Action Team<br />

Non-Governmental Organization<br />

National Institute for <strong>Soil</strong>s And Fertilizers<br />

National Land and Water <strong>Resources</strong> Audit<br />

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Advanced Very High Resolution<br />

Radiometer<br />

Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K)<br />

National Priorities List<br />

National Research Council USA<br />

Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Canada<br />

National Resource Ecology Laboratory<br />

National <strong>Resources</strong> Inventory Program<br />

Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Management<br />

National Remote Sensing Agency (India)<br />

New South Wales<br />

No-Tillage<br />

Nitrogen Use Efficiency<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXIX


OECD<br />

OM<br />

ÖNORM<br />

ÖPUL<br />

ORNL-CDIAC<br />

OSWER<br />

PAH<br />

PAM<br />

PCB<br />

PCM<br />

PEA<br />

PHC<br />

PL<br />

PLAR<br />

PMID<br />

PNUD<br />

POC<br />

POP<br />

PVC<br />

Radar-<br />

AMEDAS<br />

RAPA<br />

RELMA<br />

ROTAP<br />

RSN<br />

RUSLE<br />

SAGYP-CFA<br />

SAV<br />

SCAN<br />

SCARPS<br />

SCWMRI<br />

SD<br />

SDGS<br />

SEC<br />

SEEA<br />

SEED<br />

SF<br />

SFR<br />

Organization for Economic Co-Operation And Development<br />

Organic Matter<br />

National Standard Published By the Austrian Standards Institute<br />

Austrian Environment Programme for Agriculture<br />

Oak Ridge National Laboratory-Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center<br />

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response<br />

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon<br />

Polyacrylamide<br />

Polychlorinated Biphenyl<br />

Pyrogenic Carbonaceous Matter<br />

Participatory Expert Assessment<br />

Petroleum Hydrocarbon<br />

Plastic Limit<br />

Participatory Learning-Action-Research<br />

Pubmed Identifier<br />

Programa De Las Naciones Unidas Para El Desarrollo<br />

Particulate Organic Carbon<br />

Persistent Organic Pollutant<br />

Polyvinyl Chloride<br />

Radar-Automated Meteorological Data Acquisition System<br />

Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific<br />

Sida’s Regional Land Management Unit<br />

Review Of Transboundary Air Pollution<br />

Residual <strong>Soil</strong> Nitrogen<br />

Revised Universal <strong>Soil</strong> Loss Equation<br />

Secretaría De Agricultura, Ganadería Y Pesca – Consejo Federal Agropecuario<br />

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Climate Analysis Network<br />

Salinity Control and Reclamation Projects<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Degradation<br />

Sustainable Development Goals<br />

Staff Working Documents of European Commission<br />

System of Environmental Economic Accounting<br />

Sustainable Energy and Environment Division<br />

Subsistence Farming<br />

Stock-Flow-<strong>Resources</strong><br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXX


SKM<br />

SLAM<br />

SLC<br />

SLM<br />

SMAP<br />

SMOS<br />

SOC<br />

SOE<br />

SOER<br />

SOLAW<br />

SOM<br />

SOTER<br />

SOW-VU<br />

SPARROW<br />

SPC<br />

SPI<br />

SRI<br />

SSA<br />

SSM<br />

SSR<br />

SSSA<br />

ST<br />

STATSGO 2<br />

STEP-AWBH<br />

SWC<br />

SWSR<br />

TEEB<br />

TEOM<br />

TOC<br />

TOMS<br />

TOT<br />

TSBF<br />

UN<br />

UNCCD<br />

UNCED<br />

UNDCPAC<br />

UNDESA<br />

UNDP<br />

Sinclair Knight Merz<br />

Sustainable Land and Agro-Ecosystem Management<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Landscapes of Canada<br />

Sustainable Land Management<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Active Passive<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Ocean Salinity<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon<br />

State of the Environment<br />

European Environment State and Outlook Report<br />

State Of Land and Water<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Organic Matter<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> and Terrain Database<br />

Centre for World Food Studies of the University Of Amsterdam<br />

Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed Attributes<br />

Secretariat of the Pacific Community<br />

Science-Policy Interface<br />

Salinity Risk Index<br />

Sub-Saharan Africa<br />

Sustainable <strong>Soil</strong> Management<br />

Shift <strong>Soil</strong> Remediation<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Taxonomy<br />

Digital General <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the United States<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>, Topography, Ecology, Parent Material – Atmosphere, Water, Biotic, Human Model<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> and Water Conservation<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity<br />

Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalances<br />

Total Organic Carbon<br />

Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer<br />

Transfer of Technology<br />

Tropical <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Fertility<br />

United Nations<br />

United Nation Convention to Combat Desertification<br />

United Nations Conference on Environment And Development<br />

United Nations Desertification Control Program Activity Center<br />

United Nations Department of Economic And Social Affairs<br />

United Nations Development Program<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXXI


UNEP DEWA<br />

UNEP<br />

UNESCO<br />

UNFCCC<br />

UNFPA<br />

UNISDR<br />

UNSO<br />

USDA<br />

USEPA<br />

USGS<br />

USLE<br />

UXO<br />

WANA<br />

WCED<br />

WFP<br />

WMO<br />

WOCAT<br />

WOTR<br />

WRB<br />

WRI<br />

WWF<br />

United Nations Environment Programme and Department of Early Warning and<br />

Assessment<br />

United Nations Environment Programme<br />

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization<br />

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change<br />

United Nations Population Fund (Formerly the United Nations Fund for Population<br />

Activities)<br />

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction<br />

United Nations Development Programme - Office to Combat Desertification and Drought<br />

United States Department Of Agriculture<br />

United States Environmental Protection Agency<br />

United States Geological Survey<br />

Universal <strong>Soil</strong> Loss Equation<br />

Unexploded Ordnance<br />

West Asia-North Africa<br />

World Commission on Environment and Development<br />

United Nations World Food Programme<br />

World Meteorological Organization<br />

World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies<br />

Watershed Organization Trust<br />

World Reference Base for <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

World <strong>Resources</strong> Institute<br />

World Wildlife Fund<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXXII


List of tables<br />

Table 1.1 | Chronology of introduction of major concepts in pedology and holistic soil management | 7<br />

Table 1.2 | Ecosystem services provided by the soil and the soil functions that support these services. | 11<br />

Table 2 | <strong>Soil</strong> functions related to the water cycle and ecosystem services | 22<br />

Table 2.2 | Examples of global trends in soil management and their effects on the ecosystem services<br />

mediated by water. | 24<br />

Table 3.1 | Generalized ecosystem service rating of specific soil groups (WRB) 7 | 42<br />

Table 4.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> carbon lost globally due to land use change over the period 1860 to 2010 (PgC) | 58<br />

Table 4.2 | Threats to soil resource quality and functioning under agricultural intensification | 64<br />

Table 4.3 | Artificial areas in Corine Land Cover Legend | 65<br />

Table 4.4 | Artificial areas in Emilia Romagna according to the Corine Land Cover Legend and sealing index | 66<br />

Table 5.1 | World population by region | 90<br />

Table 5.2 | The ten most populous countries 1950, 2013, 2050 and 2100 | 90<br />

Table 6.1 | Distribution of <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon Stocks and Density by IPCC Climate Region | 112<br />

Table 6.3 | Estimate of the historic SOC depletion from principal biomes. Source: Lal, 1999. | 116<br />

Table 6.4 | Estimates of historic SOC depletion from major soil orders | 117<br />

Table 6.5 | Estimates of historic SOC loss from accelerated erosion by water and wind | 117<br />

Table 6.6 | Distribution of salt-affected soils in drylands different continents of the world | 125<br />

Table 6.7 | Major components of soil nutrient mass balances for N, P and K | 134<br />

Table 7.1 | Erosion and crop yield reduction estimates from post-2000 review articles | 177<br />

Table 8.1 | Recent Milestones in soil governance and sustainable development | 227<br />

Table 8.2 | The 5 Pillars of Action of the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership. | 227<br />

Table 9.1 | Characteristics and distribution of agro-ecological zones in Africa | 245<br />

Table 9.2 | Classes of nutrient loss rate (kg ha-1 yr-1) | 260<br />

Table 9.4 | Definitions of the five land-cover classes on which the land-cover change study was based | 274<br />

Table 9.5 | Summary of soil threats status, trends and uncertainties in Africa South of the Sahara. | 277<br />

Table 10.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change in selected countries in Asia | 299<br />

Table 10.2 | Harmonized area statistics of degraded and wastelands of India | 306<br />

Table 10.3 | Emission factors of drained tropical peatland under different land uses and the 95 percent<br />

confidential interval | 309<br />

Table 10.4 | Summary of <strong>Soil</strong> Threats Status, trends and uncertainties in Asia | 318<br />

Table 11.1 | The percentage of agricultural land area of total land area in the countries of the European | 332<br />

Table 11.2 | The areas of saline soils in the countries with major extent of soil salinization in the European<br />

region | 342<br />

Table 11.3 Types and extent of soil degradation in Ukraine | 352<br />

Table 11.4 | Summary of soil threats status, trends and uncertainties in Europe and Eurasia | 358<br />

Table 12.1 | Summary of <strong>Soil</strong> Threats Status, trends and uncertainties in in Latin America and the<br />

Caribbean | 389<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXXIII


Table 13.1 | Land degradation caused by water erosion in the NENA region (1000 ha) | 404<br />

Table 13.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> degradation caused by wind erosion in the NENA region (1000 ha) | 405<br />

Table 13.3 | Summary of soil threats: Status, trends and uncertainties in the Near East and North Africa |<br />

432<br />

Table 14.1 | Summary of soil threats status, trends and uncertainties in North America | 469<br />

Table 15.1 | Summary of current primary drivers of land-use and the associated implications for soil<br />

resources in the Southwest Pacific region | 484<br />

Table 15.2 | Current population, project population (UNDESA, 2013) and Gross Domestic Product per<br />

capita (World Bank, 2014) for countries of the region. | 484<br />

Table 15.3 | Estimated annual land–atmosphere (net) carbon (C) exchange rate for New Zealand’s major<br />

vegetation types | 489<br />

Table 15.4 | Summary of soil threats status, trends and uncertainties in the Southwest Pacific | 509<br />

List of boxes<br />

Box 1.1 | Guidelines for Action | 6<br />

Box 5.1 | Minefields | 95<br />

Box 5.2 | Migration/Refugee Camps | 95<br />

Box 5.3 | Combined effects of war and strife on soils | 95<br />

Box 6.1 | Livestock-related budgets within village territories in Western Niger | 135<br />

Box 6.2 | Nutrient balances in urban vegetable production in West African cities | 137<br />

Box 1 | The catastrophe of the Aral Sea | 354<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXXIV


List of figures<br />

Figure 2.1 | Overview of ecosystem processes involved in determining the soil C balance. | 14<br />

Figure 2.3 | Global (a) nitrogen (N) and (b) phosphorus (P) fertilizer use between 1961 and 2012 split for<br />

the different continents in Mt P per year. Source: FAO, 2015. | 19<br />

Figure 2.4 | Applied and excess nitrogen and phosphorus in croplands. Nitrogen and phosphorus<br />

inputs and excess were calculated using a simple mass balance model, extended to include 175 crops.<br />

To account for both the rate and spatial extent of croplands, the data are presented as kg per ha of the<br />

landscape: (a) applied nitrogen, including N deposition; (b) applied phosphorus; (c) excess nitrogen;<br />

and (d) excess phosphorus. Source: West et al., 2014. | 20<br />

Figure 3.1 | Nutrient availability in soils. Source: Fischer et al., 2008. | 36<br />

Figure 3.2 | Global soil rooting conditions. Source: Fischer et al., 2008. | 36<br />

Figure 3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture storage capacity. Source: Van Engelen, 2012. | 38<br />

Figure 3.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon pool (tonnes C ha -1 ). | 39<br />

Figure 3.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility as characterized by the k factor. Source: Nachtergaele and Petri, 2011. | 40<br />

Figure 3.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> workability derived from HWSD. Source: Fischer et al., 2008. | 40<br />

Figure 3.7 | <strong>Soil</strong> suitability for cropping at low input, based on the global agro-ecological zones study.<br />

Source: Fischer et al., 2008. | 41<br />

Figure 3.8 | GLASOD results. Source: Oldeman, Hakkeling and Sombroek, 1991. | 44<br />

Figure 3.9 | Example of the effect of land use on indicative factors for ecosystem goods and services | 45<br />

Figure 3.10 | <strong>Soil</strong> compaction risk derived from intensity of tractor use in crop land and from livestock<br />

density in grasslands. Source: Nachtergaele et al., 2011 | 46<br />

Figure 4.1 | Global Land Cover. Source: Latham et al., 2014. | 51<br />

Figure 4.2 | Distribution of land cover in different regions. Source: Latham et al., 2014. | 51<br />

Figure 4.3 | Historical land use change 1000 – 2005. Source: Klein Goldewijk et al., 2011. | 54<br />

Figure 4.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> carbon and nitrogen under different land cover types. Source: Smith et al. (in press). | 57<br />

Figure 4.5 | Maps of change in soil carbon due to land use change and land management from 1860 to<br />

2010 from three vegetation models. Pink indicates loss of soil carbon, blue indicates carbon gain. The<br />

models were run with historical land use change. This was compared to a model run with only natural<br />

vegetation cover to diagnose the difference in soil carbon due to land cover change. Both model runs<br />

included historical climate and CO 2<br />

change. Source: Smith et al. (in press). | 58<br />

Figure 4.6 | Schematic diagram showing areas sealed (B) as a result of infrastructure development for<br />

a settlement (A). Source: European Union, 2012. | 66<br />

Figure 4.7 | (A) Panoramic view of Las Medulas opencast gold mine (NW Spain). The Roman extractive<br />

technique – known as ‘ruina montis’ – involved the massive use of water that resulted in important<br />

geomorphological changes; (B) Weathered gossan of the Rio Tinto Cu mine, considered the birthplace<br />

of the Copper and Bronze Ages; (C) typical colour of Rio Tinto (‘red river’ in Spanish), one of the best<br />

known examples of formation of acid mine waters. These are inhabited by extremophile organisms.<br />

| 69<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXXV


Figure 4.8 | Eh-pH conditions of thionic/sulfidic soils and of hyperacid soils. Source: Otero et al.,<br />

2008. | 70<br />

Figure 4.9 | Use of different Technosols derived from wastes in the recovery of hyperacid soils and<br />

waters in the restored mine of Touro (Galicia, NW Spain). | 72<br />

Figure 4.10 | Global distribution of (a) atmospheric S deposition, (b) soil sensitivity to acidification, (c)<br />

atmospheric N deposition, and (d) soil carbon to nitrogen ratio (soils most sensitive to eutrophication<br />

have a high C:N ratio; eutrophication is caused by N). Source: Vet et al., 2014; Batjes, 2012; FAO,<br />

2007. | 75<br />

Figure 5.1 | Percentage of female landholders around the world. Source: FAO, 2010. | 92<br />

Figure 5.2 | Major land deals occurring between countries in 2012. Source: <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas, 2015/Rulli et al.,<br />

2013. | 93<br />

Figure 6.1 | Spatial variation of soil erosion by water. High rates (>ca. 20 t ha -1 y -1 ) mainly occur on<br />

cropland in tropical areas. The map gives an indication of current erosion rates and does not assess<br />

the degradation status of the soils. The map is derived from Van Oost et al., 2007 using a quantile<br />

classification. | 102<br />

Figure 6.2 | Location of active and fixed aeolian deposits. Source: Thomas and Wiggs, 2008. | 103<br />

Figure 6.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> relict in the Jadan basin, Ecuador. Photo by G. Govers | 103<br />

In this area overgrazing led to excessive erosion and the soil has been completely stripped from most<br />

of the landscape in less than 200 years, exposing the highly weathered bedrock below. The person is<br />

standing on a small patch of the B-horizon of the original soil that has been preserved. Picture credit:<br />

Gerard Govers. | 103<br />

Figure 6.4 | Dust storm near Meadow, Texas, USA | 106<br />

Figure 6.5 | Distribution of carbon in biomass between ORNL-CDIAC Biomass and JRC Carbon<br />

Biomass Map | 113<br />

Figure 6.6 | Prevalence of carbon in the topsoil or biomass | 114<br />

Figure 6.7 | Proportion of carbon in broad vegetation classes for soil and biomass carbon pool | 115<br />

Figure 6.8 | Estimated dominant topsoil pH. Source: FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC, 2009. | 124<br />

Figure 6.9 | Historical and predicted shift of the urban/rural population ratio. Source: UN, 2008. | 130<br />

Figure 6.10 | Urbanisation of the best agricultural soils. | 131<br />

Figure 6.11 | Major components of the soil nutrient balance.<br />

The red discontinuous line marks the soil volume over which the mass balance is calculated. Green<br />

arrows correspond to inputs and red arrows to losses. ΔS represents the change in nutrient stock. | 133<br />

Figure 6.12 | The flows of water and energy through the soil-vegetation horizon | 140<br />

Figure 6.13 | The soil-water characteristic curve linking matric potential, to the soil’s volumetric water<br />

content.<br />

Source: Tuller and Or, 2003. | 141<br />

Figure 6.14 | The soil’s hydraulic conductivity, K (cm day -1 ) in relation to the matric potential, (MPa).<br />

As the matric potential becomes more negative the soil’s water content drops (see Figure 6.16) which<br />

increases the tortuosity and slows the flow of water. Source: Hunter College. 3 | 142<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXXVI


Figure 6.15 | Factors controlling soil water spatial variability and the scales at which they are<br />

important. Source: Crow et al., 2010) | 143<br />

Figure 6.16 | (a) Global distribution of average soil moisture depth in the top 1 m of the soil. (b)<br />

Seasonal variability in soil moisture calculated as the standard deviation of monthly mean soil<br />

moisture over the year. (c-d) Global trends (1950-2008) in precipitation and 1 m soil moisture. (e-f) As<br />

for (c-d) but for 1990-2008. Results for arid regions and permanent ice sheets are not shown. Source:<br />

Sheffield and Wood, 2007. | 145<br />

Figure 7.1 | The 11 dimensions of society’s ‘social foundation’ and the nine dimensions of the<br />

‘environmental ceiling’ of the planet. Source: Vince and Raworth, 2012. | 170<br />

Figure 7.2 | Conceptual framework for comparing land use and trade-offs of ecosystem services.<br />

Source: Foley et al., 2005. | 171<br />

Figure 7.3 | Response curves of mean ecosystem service indicators per 1-km 2 across Great Britain.<br />

Source: Maskell et al., 2013. | 173<br />

The curves are fitted using generalized additive models to ordination axes constrained by; (a)<br />

proportion of intensive land (arable and improved grassland habitats) within each 1-km square from<br />

CS field survey data; (b) mean long-term annual average rainfall (1978–2005); and (c) mean soil pH<br />

from five random sampling locations in each 1-km square. All X axes are scaled to the units of each<br />

constraining variable | 173<br />

Figure 7.4 | The food wedge and the effect of soil change on the area of the wedge. Source: Keating et<br />

al., 2014.<br />

The relative sizes of the effects of soil change on the food wedge are not drawn to scale. | 174<br />

Figure 7.5 | Direct impacts of soil threats on specific soil functions of relevance to plant production. |<br />

176<br />

Figure 7.6 | Some soil-related feedbacks to global climate change to illustrate the complexity and<br />

potential number of response pathways. Source: Heimann and Reichstein, 2008. | 183<br />

Figure 7.7 | Definition of soil moisture regimes and corresponding evapotranspiration regimes.<br />

Source: Seneviratne et al., 2010.<br />

EF denotes the evaporative fraction, and EFmax its maximal value. | 186<br />

Figure 7.8 | Estimation of evapotranspiration drivers (moisture and radiation) based on observationdriven<br />

land surface model simulation. Source: Seneviratne et al., 2010.<br />

The figure displays yearly correlations of evapotranspiration with global radiation Rg and precipitation<br />

P in simulations from the 2nd phase of the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Wetness Project (GSWP, Dirmeyer et al., 2006)<br />

using a two-dimensional color map, based on Teuling et al. 2009, redrawn for the whole globe.<br />

(Seneviratne et al., 2010) | 187<br />

Figure 7.9 | A conceptual sketch of how vulnerability, exposure and external events (climate, weather,<br />

geophysical) contribute to the risk of a natural hazard. Source: IPCC, 2012. | 196<br />

Figure 7.10 | Trends in landslide frequency and mortality on Asia. Source: FAO, 2011; EM-DAT, 2010. | 197<br />

Figure 9.1 | Agro-ecological zones in Africa South of the Sahara. Source: Otte and Chilonda, 2002. | 245<br />

Figure 9.2 | Extent of urban areas and Urbanization Indexes for the Sub-Saharan African countries.<br />

Source: Schneider, Friedl and Potere, 2010. | 253<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXXVII


Figure 9.3 | The fertility rate (the number of children a woman is expected to bear during her lifetime)<br />

for 1970 and 2005. Source: Fooddesert.org | 255<br />

Figure 9.4 | Percentage of population living below the poverty line. Source: CIA World Factbook,<br />

2012. | 255<br />

Table 9.3 | Estimated nutrient balance in some SSA countries in 1982-84 and forecasts for 2000. Surce:<br />

Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990; Roy et al., 2003. | 262<br />

Figure 9.5 | Major land use systems in Senegal. Source: FAO, 2010. | 264<br />

Figure 9.6 Proportional extent of major land use systems in the Senegal. Source: Ndiaye and Dieng,<br />

2013. | 264<br />

Figure 9.7 | Extent of dominant degradation type in Senegal. Source: FAO, 2010. | 265<br />

Figure 9.8 | Average rate of degradation in Senegal. Source: FAO, 2010. | 265<br />

Figure 9.9 | Impact of degradation on ecosystem services in the local study areas in Senegal. Source:<br />

Ndiaye and Dieng, 2013. | 266<br />

Figure 9.10 | Broad soil patterns of South Africa. Source: Land Type Survey Staff, 2003. | 268<br />

Figure 9.11 | The national stratification used for land degradation assessment in South Africa,<br />

incorporating local municipality boundaries with 18 land use classes. Source: Pretorius, 2009. | 270<br />

Figure 9.12 | Actual water erosion prediction map of South Africa. Source: Le Roux et al., 2012. | 271<br />

Figure 9.13 | Topsoil pH derived from undisturbed (natural) soils. Source: Beukes, Stronkhorst and<br />

Jezile, 2008a. | 273<br />

Figure 9.14 | Change in land-cover between 1994 and 2005 as part of the Five Class Land-cover of<br />

South Africa after logical corrections. Source: Schoeman et al., 2010. | 275<br />

Figure 10.1 | Length of the available growing period in Asia (in days yr -1 ). Source: Fischer et al., 2012. | 289<br />

Figure 10.2 | Threats to soils in the Asia region by country. | 291<br />

Figure 10.3 | Nitrogen surplus or depletion, and nutrient use efficiency in crop production in Asia and<br />

the Middle East in 2010. | 304<br />

Figure 10.4 | Degradation and wastelands map of India. Source: ICAR and NAAS, 2010. | 305<br />

Figure 10.5 | Indonesian peatland map overlaid with land cover map as of 2011. Source: Wahyunto et<br />

al., 2014. | 310<br />

Figure 10.6 | Distribution map of radioactive Cs concentration in soil in Fukushima prefecture<br />

(reference date of 5 November, 2011). Source: Takata et al., 2014. | 312<br />

Figure 10.7 | Distribution map of the parameters of USLE and classification of estimated soil loss.<br />

Class I: less than 1 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; Class II: 1-5 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; Class III: 5-10 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; Class IV: 10-30<br />

tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; Class V: 30-50 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; Class VI: more than 50 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . Source: Kohyama<br />

et al., 2012. | 313<br />

Figure 10.8 | Estimate CH 4 emission from rice paddy in Asia. Source: Yan et al., 2009. | 315<br />

Figure 11.1 | Terrestrial eco-regions of the European region. Source: Olson et al., 2001. | 333<br />

Figure 11.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization on the territory of the European region. Source: Afonin et al., 2008; Toth<br />

et al., 2008; GDRS, 1987. | 343<br />

Figure 11.3 | Some types and extent of soil degradation in Ukraine. Source: Medvedev, 2012. | 353<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXXVIII


Figure 11.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> map and soil degradation extent in Uzbekistan. Source: Arabov, 2010. | 355<br />

Figure 12.1 | Biomes in Latin America and the Caribbean. Source: Olson et al., 2001. | 367<br />

Figure 12.2 | Extent of the urban area and the urbanization index for Latin American and Caribbean<br />

countries. | 374<br />

Figure 12.3 | shows soil organic carbon contents and stocks (taking into account soil bulk density)<br />

in different Mexican ecosystems. Carbon concentrations (left) and carbon stocks (right) in the main<br />

ecosystems of Mexico. In both cases the bars with the strongest tone indicate a primary forest, closed<br />

pasture or permanent agriculture. Bars with the softer tone indicate a secondary forest, open pasture<br />

or annual agriculture. Source: Cruz-Gaistardo, 2014. | 376<br />

Figure 12.4 | Organic carbon stock (or density) in soils of Latin America and the Caribbean, expressed<br />

in Gigagrams per hectare. Source: Gardi et al., 2014. | 378<br />

Figure 12.5 | Tree cover in the tonne 2000 and forest loss in the period 2000-2014. (A) Brazil, centered<br />

at 5.3°S, 50.2°W; (B) Mexico and Guatemala, centered at 16.3°N, 90.8°W and (C) Perú, centered at<br />

8.7°S, 74.9°W; (D) Argentina, centered at 27.0°S, 62.3°W and (E) Chile, centered at 72.5°S, 37.4°W. Source:<br />

Hansen et al., 2013. | 379<br />

Figure 12.6 | Expansion of the agricultural frontier under rainfed conditions in the north of Argentina.<br />

Source: Viglizzo & Jobbagy, 2010. | 383<br />

Figure 12.7 | Percentage of areas affected by wind (a) and water erosion (b) in Argentina. Source:<br />

Prego et al., 1988. | 385<br />

Figure 12.8 | Predominant types of land degradation in Cuba. Source: FAO, 2010. | 387<br />

Figure 12.9 | Extent of land degradation in land use system units in Cuba. Source: FAO, 2010. | 387<br />

Figure 12.10 | Intensity of land degradation in Cuba. Source: FAO, 2010. | 388<br />

Figure 13.1 | Land use systems in the Near East and North Africa. Source: FAO, 2010. | 403<br />

Figure 13.2 | Extent of the urban areas and Urbanization Indexes for the Near East and North African<br />

countries. Source: Schneider, Friedl and Potere, 2009. | 410<br />

Figure 13.3 | Layout of the project site source (a) and conceptual design and layout of bioremediation<br />

system (b). Source: Balba et al., 1998. | 421<br />

Figure 13.4 | Rate of water erosion in Iran. Source: <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation and Watershed Management<br />

Research Institute. | 424<br />

Figure 13.5 | Shows days with dust storms in 2012, while Figure 13.6 shows the origin of dust storms in 2012. | 425<br />

Figure 13.6 | Internal and external dust sources in recent years in Iran. Source: University of Tehran, 2013. | 426<br />

Figure 13.7 | Assessment of Water (a) and Wind Erosion (b) in Tunisia | 427<br />

Figure 13.8 | <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation in Tunisia | 428<br />

Figure 13.9 | Type of ecosystem service most affected. | 429<br />

Figure 14.1 | Level II Ecological regions of North America. Source: Commission for Environmental<br />

Cooperation, 1997. | 446<br />

Figure 14.2 | Map of Superfund sites in the contiguous United States Yellow indicates final EPA<br />

National Priorities List sites and red indicates proposed sites. Source: EPA, 2014a. | 449<br />

Figure 14.3 | Areas in United States threatened by salinization and sodification. Source: NRCS 1 | 451<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XXXIX


Figure 14.4 | Risk of soil salinization in Canada 2011. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015. | 452<br />

Figure 14.5 | Risk of water erosion in Canada 2011. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015. | 461<br />

Figure 14.6 | Risk of wind erosion in Canada 2011. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015. | 462<br />

Figure 14.7 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change in Canada 201. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015. | 463<br />

Figure 14.8 | Residual soil N in Canada 2011. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015. | 465<br />

Figure 14.9 | Indicator of risk of water contamination by phosphorus (IROWC-P) in Canada in 2011.<br />

Source: Clearwater et al., 2015. | 466<br />

Figure 15.1 | Nations in the Southwest Pacific region and the extent of Melanesia, Micronesia and<br />

Polynesian cultures. Figure based on base map imagery: exclusive economic zone boundaries (EEZ)v 8<br />

2014, Natural Earth 11 3.2.0 | 478<br />

Figure 15.2 | Change in the percentage area of all land prepared for crops and pastures under different<br />

tillage practices in Australia, 1996-2010 Source: SOE, 2011. | 486<br />

Figure 15.3 | (a) Trends in winter rainfall in south-western Australia for the period 1900–2012. Source:<br />

Australian Bureau of Meteorology 1 .<br />

The 15-year running average is shown by the black line. (b) Annual mean temperature anomaly time<br />

series map for south-western Australia (1910–2012), using a baseline annual temperature (1961–1990)<br />

of 16.3 °C. The 15-year running average is shown by the black line. | 501<br />

Figure 15.4 | Percentage of sites sampled (2005–12) with soil pH at 0–10 cm depth below the<br />

established target of pHCa 5.5 (left) and the critical pHCa 5.0 (right). Grey indicates native vegetation<br />

and reserves. Source: Gazey, Andrew and Griffin, 2013. | 502<br />

Figure 15.5 | Agricultural lime sales 2005–12 in the south-west of Western Australia based on data for<br />

85–90 percent of the market. | 503<br />

Figure 15.6 | MODIS image for 0000 23 September 2009 showing Red Dawn extending from south<br />

of Sydney to the Queensland/NSW border and the PM 10 concentrations measured using Tapered<br />

Element Oscillating Microbalances (TEOM) at the same time at ground stations. | 506<br />

Figure A 1 | (a) A Histosol profile and (b) a peatbog in East-European tundra. | 529<br />

Figure A 2 | (a) An Anthrosol (Plaggen) profile and (b) associated landscape in the Netherlands. | 531<br />

Figure A 3 | (a) A Technosol profile and (b) artefacts found in Technosol. | 533<br />

Figure A 4 | (a) A Cryosol profile and (b) associated landscape in West Siberia, Yamal Peninsula. | 535<br />

Figure A 5 | (a) A Leptosol profile in the Northern Ural Mountains and (b) associated landscape. | 537<br />

Figure A 6 | Vertisol gilgai patterns and associated soils: (a) linear gilgai pattern located on a<br />

moderately sloping hillside in western South Dakota. Distance between repeating gilgai cycle is about<br />

4 m. (b) Normal gilgai pattern occurring on a nearly level clayey terrace near College Station, TX. After a<br />

rainfall event microlows have been partially filled with runoff water from microhighs - repeating gilgai<br />

cycle about 4 m in linear length. (c) Trench exposure of soils excavated across normal gilgai pattern -<br />

repeating gilgai cycle about 4 m in linear length. Dark-colored deep soil in microlow (leached A and Bss<br />

horizons) with light-colored shallow calcareous soils associated with diaper in microhigh (Bssk and Ck<br />

horizons). The diaper has been thrust along oblique slickenside planes towards soils surface. Vertical<br />

depth of soil trench in about 2 m. (d) Close up of dark-colored soil associated with microlow and light<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XL


colored diaper associated with microhigh of the trench in (c). | 539<br />

Figure A 7 | (a) A Solonetz profile and (b) the associated landscape in Hungary. | 541<br />

Figure A 8 | (a) A Solonchak profile and (b) a salt crust with halophytes. | 543<br />

Figure A 9 | (a) A Podzol profile and (b) an associated landscape, West-Siberian Plain. | 545<br />

Figure A 10 | (a) A giant Podzol profile and (b) an associated landscape, Brazil. | 546<br />

Figure A 11 | (a) A Ferralsol profile and (b) an associated landscape, Brazil. | 548<br />

Figure A 12 | (a) A Nitisol profile and (b) the associated landscape with termite mounds, Brazil. | 550<br />

Figure A 13 | (a) A Plinthosol profile, (b) details of the plinthic horizon and (c) the associated landscape,<br />

South Africa. | 552<br />

Figure A 14 | (a) A Planosol profile and (b) the associated landscape, Argentina. | 554<br />

Figure A 15 | (a) A Gleysol profile and (b) associated landscape in the East European tundra. | 556<br />

Figure A 16 | (a) A Stagnosol profile, (b) stagnic color patterns, (c) marble-like horizontal surface and<br />

(d) an associated landscape. | 558<br />

Figure A 17 | (a) An Andosol profile and (b) the associated landscape in Japan. | 560<br />

Figure A 18 | (a) A Chernozem profile (Photo by J. Deckers) and (b) the associated landscape in the<br />

Central Russian Uplands. | 562<br />

Figure A 19 | (a) A Kastanozem profile and (b) the associated landscape in Mongolia. | 564<br />

Figure A 20 | (a) A Phaeozem profile and (b) the associated landscape, Argentinian Pampa. | 566<br />

Figure A 21 | (a) An Umbrisol profile, (b) associated vegetation and (c) an associated landscape. | 568<br />

Figure A 22 | (a) A Durisol profile and (b) the associated landscape, Ecuador. | 570<br />

Figure A 23 | (a) A Calcisol profile, (b) an associated landscape and (c and d) secondary carbonates in<br />

Calcisols. | 572<br />

Figure A 24 | (a) A Gypsisol profile and (b) an associated landscape. | 574<br />

Figure A 25 | (a) A Retisol profile, (b) the “retic” pattern in a Retisol and (c) the associated landscape,<br />

Belgium. | 576<br />

Figure A 26 | (a) An Acrisol profile and (b) the associated landform in Kalimantan, Indonesia. | 578<br />

Figure A 27 | (a) A Lixisol profile and (b) the associated landscape, Brazil. | 580<br />

Figure A 28 | (a) An Alisol profile and (b) the associated landscape, Belgium. | 582<br />

Figure A 29 | (a) A Luvisol profile and (b) the associated landscape, China. | 584<br />

Figure A 30 | (a) A Cambisol profile and (b) the associated landscape, China. | 586<br />

Figure A 31 | (a) A Regosol profile and (b) the associated landscape, China. | 588<br />

Figure A 32 | (a) An Arenosol profile in South Korea and (b) an Arenosol profile in New Mexico. | 590<br />

Figure A 33 | (a) A Fluvisol profile in Wisconsin and (b) a Fluvisol profile in Germany. | 592<br />

Figure A 34 | (a) A Wassent profile and (b) the associated landscape, the Netherlands. | 594<br />

Figure A 35 | Global <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World based on HWSD and FAO Revised Legend (Nachtergaele<br />

and Petri, 2008) | 595<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XLI


Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report<br />

XLII


Preface<br />

The main objectives of The State of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> are: (a) to provide a global scientific<br />

assessment of current and projected soil conditions built on regional data analysis and expertise; (b) to<br />

explore the implications of these soil conditions for food security, climate change, water quality and quantity,<br />

biodiversity, and human health and wellbeing; and (c) to conclude with a series of recommendations for action<br />

by policymakers and other stakeholders.<br />

The book is divided into two parts. The first part deals with global soil issues (Chapters 1 to 8). This is<br />

followed by a more specific assessment of regional soil change, covering in turn Africa South of the Sahara,<br />

Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near East and North Africa, North America, the Southwest<br />

Pacific and Antarctica. (Chapters 9 to 16). The technical and executive summaries are published separately.<br />

In Chapter 1 the principles of the World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter are discussed, including guidelines for stakeholders to<br />

ensure that soils are managed sustainably and that degraded soils are rehabilitated or restored. For long, soil<br />

was considered almost exclusively in the context of food production. However, with the increasing impact of<br />

humans on the environment, the connections between soil and broader environmental concerns have been<br />

made and new and innovative ways of relating soils to people have begun to emerge in the past two decades.<br />

Societal issues such as food security, sustainability, climate change, carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas<br />

emissions, and degradation through erosion and loss of organic matter and nutrients are all closely related<br />

to the soil resource. These ecosystem services provided by the soil and the soil functions that support these<br />

services are central to the discussion in the report.<br />

In Chapter 2 synergies and trade-offs are reviewed, together with the role of soils in supporting ecosystem<br />

services, and their role in underpinning natural capital. The discussion then covers knowledge - and knowledge<br />

gaps - on the role of soils in the carbon, nitrogen and water cycles, and on the role of soils as a habitat for<br />

organisms and as a genetic pool. This is followed in Chapter 3 by an overview of the diversity of global soil<br />

resources and of the way they have been assessed in the past. Chapter 4 reviews the various anthropogenic<br />

and natural pressures - in particular, land use and soil management – which cause chemical, physical and<br />

biological variations in soils and the consequent changes in environmental services assured by those soils.<br />

Land use and soil management are in turn largely determined by socio-economic conditions. These<br />

conditions are the subject of Chapter 5, which discusses in particular the role of population dynamics, market<br />

access, education and cultural values as well as the wealth or poverty of the land users. Climate change and<br />

its anticipated effects on soils are also discussed in this chapter.<br />

Chapter 6 discusses the current global status and trends of the major soil processes threatening ecosystem<br />

services. These include soil erosion, soil organic carbon loss, soil contamination, soil acidification, soil<br />

salinization, soil biodiversity loss, soil surface effects, soil nutrient status, soil compaction and soil moisture<br />

conditions.<br />

Chapter 7 undertakes an assessment of the ways in which soil change is likely to impact on soil functions<br />

and the likely consequences for ecosystem service delivery. Each subsection in this chapter outlines key soil<br />

processes involved with the delivery of goods and services and how these are changing. The subsections<br />

then review how these changes affect soil function and the soil’s contribution to ecosystem service delivery.<br />

The discussion is organized according to the reporting categories of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,<br />

including provisioning, supporting, regulating and cultural services.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Preface<br />

1


Chapter 8 of the report explores policy, institutional and land use management options and responses to<br />

soil changes that are available to governments and land users.<br />

The regional assessments in Chapters 9 to 16 follow a standard outline: after a brief description of the main<br />

biophysical features of each region, the status and trends of each major soil threat are discussed. Each chapter<br />

ends with one or more national case studies of soil change and a table summarizing the results, including the<br />

status and trends of soil changes in the region and related uncertainties.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Preface<br />

2


Global soil resources<br />

Coordinating Lead Authors:<br />

Maria Gerasimova (Russia), Thomas Reinsch (United States), Pete Smith (United Kingdom)<br />

Contributing Authors:<br />

Lucia Anjos (Brazil), Susumu Asakawa (Japan), Ochirbat Batkhishig (Mongolia), James<br />

Bockheim (United States), Robert Brinkman (Netherlands), Gabrielle Broll (Germany), Mercedes<br />

Bustamante (Brazil), Marta Camps Arbestain (ITPS/New Zealand), Przemyslaw Charzynski (Poland),<br />

Joanna Clark (United Kingdom), Francesca Cotrufo (United States), Maur’cio Rizzato Coelho (Brazil),<br />

Jane Elliott (Canada), Maria Gerasimova (Russia), Robert I. Griffiths (United Kingdom),<br />

Richard Harper (Australia), Jo House (United Kingdom), Peter Kuikman (Netherlands),<br />

Tapan Kumar Adhya (India), Richard McDowell (New Zealand), Freddy Nachtergaele (Belgium),<br />

Masami Nanzyo (Japan), Christian Omutu (Kenya), Genxing Pan (China), Keith Paustian (United States),<br />

Dan Pennock (ITPS/Canada), Cornelia Rumpel (France), Jaroslava Sobocká (Slovakia),<br />

Mark Stolt (United States), Mabel Susna Pasos (Argentina), Charles Tarnocai (Canada), Tibor Toth<br />

(Hungary), Ronald Vargas (Bolivia), Paul West (United States), Larry P. Wilding (United States),<br />

Ganlin Zhang (ITPS/China), Juan JosŽ Ibánez (Spain), Felipe Macias (Spain).<br />

Reviewing Authors:<br />

Dominique Arrouays (ITPS/France), Richard Bardgett (United Kingdom), Marta Camps Arbestain<br />

(ITPS/New Zealand), Tandra Fraser (Canada), Ciro Gardi (Italy), Neil McKenzie (ITPS/Australia),<br />

Luca Montanarella (ITPS/EC), Dan Pennock (ITPS/Canada) and Diana Wall (United States).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

3


1 | Introduction<br />

1.1 | The World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter<br />

“<strong>Soil</strong>s are fundamental to life on earth.”<br />

We know more about soil than ever before, yet perhaps a smaller percentage of people than at any point<br />

in human history would understand the truth of this statement. The proportion of human labour devoted to<br />

working the soil has steadily decreased through the past century, and hence the experience of direct contact<br />

with the soil has lessened in most regions. <strong>Soil</strong> is very different in this regard from food, energy, water and air,<br />

to which each of us requires constant and secure access. Yet human society as a whole depends more than<br />

ever before on products from the soil as well as on the more intangible services it provides for maintenance of<br />

the biosphere.<br />

Our goal in this report is to make clear these essential connections between human well-being and the soil,<br />

and to provide a benchmark against which our collective progress to conserve this essential resource can be<br />

measured.<br />

The statement that begins this section is drawn from the opening sentence of the preamble of the revised<br />

World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter (FAO, 2015):<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s are fundamental to life on Earth but human pressures on soil resources are reaching<br />

critical limits. Careful soil management is one essential element of sustainable agriculture and<br />

also provides a valuable lever for climate regulation and a pathway for safeguarding ecosystem<br />

services and biodiversity.<br />

The World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter presents a series of nine principles that summarize our current understanding of the<br />

soil, the multi-faceted role it plays, and the threats to its ability to continue to serve these roles. As such, the<br />

nine principles form a succinct and comprehensive introduction to this report.<br />

Principles from the World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter:<br />

Principle 1: <strong>Soil</strong>s are a key enabling resource, central to the creation of a host of goods and services integral<br />

to ecosystems and human well-being. The maintenance or enhancement of global soil resources is essential if<br />

humanity’s overarching need for food, water, and energy security is to be met in accordance with the sovereign<br />

rights of each state over their natural resources. In particular, the projected increases in food, fibre, and fuel<br />

production required to achieve food and energy security will place increased pressure on the soil.<br />

Principle 2: <strong>Soil</strong>s result from complex actions and interactions of processes in time and space and hence<br />

are themselves diverse in form and properties and the level of ecosystems services they provide. Good soil<br />

governance requires that these differing soil capabilities be understood and that land use that respects the<br />

range of capabilities be encouraged with a view to eradicating poverty and achieving food security.<br />

Principle 3: <strong>Soil</strong> management is sustainable if the supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services<br />

provided by soil are maintained or enhanced without significantly impairing either the soil functions that<br />

enable those services or biodiversity.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

4


The balance between the supporting and provisioning services for plant production and the regulating<br />

services the soil provides for water quality and availability and for atmospheric greenhouse gas composition<br />

is a particular concern.<br />

Principle 4: The implementation of soil management decisions is typically made locally and occurs within<br />

widely differing socio-economic contexts. The development of specific measures appropriate for adoption by<br />

local decision-makers often requires multi-level, interdisciplinary initiatives by many stakeholders. A strong<br />

commitment to including local and indigenous knowledge is critical.<br />

Principle 5: The specific functions provided by a soil are governed, in large part, by the suite of chemical,<br />

biological, and physical properties present in that soil. Knowledge of the actual state of those properties, their<br />

role in soil functions, and the effect of change – both natural and human-induced – on them is essential to<br />

achieve sustainability.<br />

Principle 6: <strong>Soil</strong>s are a key reservoir of global biodiversity, which ranges from micro-organisms to flora and<br />

fauna. This biodiversity has a fundamental role in supporting soil functions and therefore ecosystem goods<br />

and services associated with soils. Therefore it is necessary to maintain soil biodiversity to safeguard these<br />

functions.<br />

Principle 7: All soils – whether actively managed or not – provide ecosystem services relevant to global<br />

climate regulation and multi-scale water regulation. Land use conversion can reduce these global commongood<br />

services provided by soils. The impact of local or regional land-use conversions can be reliably evaluated<br />

only in the context of global evaluations of the contribution of soils to essential ecosystem services.<br />

Principle 8: <strong>Soil</strong> degradation inherently reduces or eliminates soil functions and their ability to support<br />

ecosystem services essential for human well-being. Minimizing or eliminating significant soil degradation<br />

is essential to maintain the services provided by all soils and is substantially more cost-effective than<br />

rehabilitating soils after degradation has occurred.<br />

Principle 9: <strong>Soil</strong>s that have experienced degradation can, in some cases, have their core functions and their<br />

contributions to ecosystem services restored through the application of appropriate rehabilitation techniques.<br />

This increases the area available for the provision of services without necessitating land use conversion.<br />

These nine principles lead to guidelines for action by society (Box 1.1). The guidelines are introduced with<br />

a clear statement of our collective goal: ‘The overarching goal for all parties is to ensure that soils are managed<br />

sustainably and that degraded soils are rehabilitated or restored.’ This opening statement is followed by a series of<br />

specific guidelines for different segments of human society. Future updates of this report will document our<br />

success in implementation of these guidelines, and in achieving the goal set by the signatories of the World<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Charter.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

5


Box 1.1 | Guidelines for Action<br />

(from the World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter)<br />

The overarching goal for all parties is to ensure<br />

that soils are managed sustainably and that<br />

degraded soils are rehabilitated or restored.<br />

Good soil governance requires that actions<br />

at all levels – from states, and, to the extent<br />

that they are able, other public authorities,<br />

international organizations, individuals, groups,<br />

and corporations – be informed by the principles<br />

of sustainable soil management and contribute<br />

to the achievement of a land-degradation neutral<br />

world in the context of sustainable development.<br />

All actors and, specifically, each of the following<br />

stakeholder groups are encouraged to consider the<br />

following actions:<br />

Actions by Individuals and the Private Sector<br />

1. All individuals using or managing soil must<br />

act as stewards of the soil to ensure that<br />

this essential natural resource is managed<br />

sustainably to safeguard it for future<br />

generations.<br />

2. Undertake sustainable soil management in the<br />

production of goods and services.<br />

Actions by Groups and the Science Community<br />

1. Disseminate information and knowledge on<br />

soils.<br />

2. Emphasize the importance of sustainable<br />

soil management to avoid impairing key soil<br />

functions.<br />

Actions by Governments<br />

1. Promote sustainable soil management that is<br />

relevant to the range of soils present and the<br />

needs of the country.<br />

2. Strive to create socio-economic and<br />

institutional conditions favourable to<br />

sustainable soil management by removal<br />

of obstacles. Ways and means should be<br />

pursued to overcome obstacles to the<br />

adoption of sustainable soil management<br />

associated with land tenure, the rights<br />

of users, access to financial services and<br />

educational programmes. Reference is made<br />

to the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible<br />

Governance of Tenure of Land, Forests and<br />

Fisheries in the Context of National Food<br />

Security adopted by the Committee on World<br />

Food Security in May 2012.<br />

3. Participate in the development of multi-level,<br />

interdisciplinary educational and capacitybuilding<br />

initiatives that promote the adoption<br />

of sustainable soil management by land users.<br />

4. Support research programs that will provide<br />

sound scientific backing for development<br />

and implementation of sustainable soil<br />

management relevant to end users.<br />

5. Incorporate the principles and practices<br />

of sustainable soil management into<br />

policy guidance and legislation at all levels<br />

of government, ideally leading to the<br />

development of a national soil policy.<br />

6. Explicitly consider the role of soil management<br />

practices in planning for adaptation to and<br />

mitigation of climate change and maintaining<br />

biodiversity.<br />

7. Establish and implement regulations to limit<br />

the accumulation of contaminants beyond<br />

established levels to safeguard human health<br />

and wellbeing and facilitate remediation of<br />

contaminated soils that exceed these levels<br />

where they pose a threat to humans, plants,<br />

and animals.<br />

8. Develop and maintain a national soil<br />

information system and contribute to the<br />

development of a global soil information<br />

system.<br />

9. Develop a national institutional framework for<br />

monitoring implementation of sustainable soil<br />

management and overall state of soil resources.<br />

Actions by International Organizations<br />

10. Facilitate the compilation and dissemination<br />

of authoritative reports on the state of the<br />

global soil resources and sustainable soil<br />

management protocols.<br />

11. Coordinate efforts to develop an accurate,<br />

high-resolution global soil information system<br />

and ensure its integration with other global<br />

earth observing systems.<br />

12. Assist governments, on request, to establish<br />

appropriate legislation, institutions,<br />

and processes to enable them to mount,<br />

implement, and monitor appropriate<br />

sustainable soil management practices.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

6


1.2 | Basic concepts<br />

Prior to the 20th century, soil was considered almost exclusively in the context of agriculture and food<br />

production. As the global impact of humanity on natural resources has increased over the past 150 years, the<br />

connections between soil and broader environmental concerns began to be made. The recognition of these<br />

connections has accelerated through time, and new and innovative ways of relating soils to people have begun<br />

to emerge in past the two decades. The rise in complexity of soil knowledge and application was synthesized<br />

by Bockheim et al. (2005) (Table 1.1) in their summary of milestones in pedology; concepts introduced since<br />

2005 have been added by the authors of this chapter. We can see that the number and breadth of concepts<br />

have been expanding rapidly over the past two decades.<br />

Period Pedology <strong>Soil</strong> management<br />

Pre -1 880<br />

Concept of soil as a medium for plant growth and as a<br />

weathered rock layer.<br />

1880–1900<br />

Appearance of fundamental pedology concepts: soil as a natural<br />

body; soil horizons/profiles; soil-forming factors; early ideas of<br />

soil geography.<br />

1900–1940<br />

Global acceptance of concepts of soil as a natural body and soilforming<br />

factors; development of first regional soil classification<br />

systems; soil surveys initiated; identification of key soil-forming<br />

processes.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> conservation<br />

1940– 1960<br />

Factors of soil formation and genesis of soils clarified;<br />

development of global soil taxonomic systems; intensified soil<br />

mapping.<br />

1960–1985<br />

Refinement of global soil taxonomic systems; identification<br />

of pedon concept; development of early soil models and soil<br />

cover pattern concept; recognition of co-evolution of soils and<br />

landforms.<br />

World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter<br />

(1981) Land capability/<br />

suitability assessment<br />

Assessment of humaninduced<br />

degradation<br />

(GLASOD)<br />

1985– 2000<br />

Increased understanding of soil processes; refinement of<br />

global soil models; further refinement of global soil taxonomic<br />

systems; development of statistical and computer-based soil<br />

information systems.<br />

Sustainable soil<br />

management<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> quality<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> health<br />

2000-2015<br />

Earth System Science, pedosphere, digital soil mapping,<br />

pedodiversity, ethnopedology, pedometrics, proximal sensing,<br />

soil systems. hydropedology, critical zone.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> security<br />

Carbon sequestration<br />

Table 1.1. Chronology of introduction of major concepts in pedology and holistic soil management<br />

(after Bockheim et al., 2005).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

7


The connections between soils and societal issues – such as food security, sustainability, climate change,<br />

carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, and degradation through erosion and loss of organic<br />

matter and nutrients – are central to the recently developed concept of soil security (McBratney, Field and<br />

Koch, 2014). <strong>Soil</strong> security has been defined as the maintenance or improvement of the world’s soil resources<br />

so that they can provide sufficient food, fibre, and fresh water, contribute to energy sustainability and climate<br />

stability, maintain biodiversity, and deliver overall environmental protection and ecosystem services (Bouma<br />

and McBratney, 2013).<br />

There have been major developments over the past three decades in our broader understanding of human<br />

impact on the earth and of frameworks to assess this impact. The structure and content of this report comprise<br />

a synthesis of themes and concepts from many major initiatives in environmental science and pedology. The<br />

most important of these themes and concepts are discussed in the following paragraphs.<br />

Sustainable soil management<br />

The concept of sustainable development is most closely associated with the 1987 report of the United<br />

Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, better known as the Brundtland Commission<br />

after its chairperson, Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway (World Commission on Environment and<br />

Development, 1987). The report popularized a compelling definition of sustainability: development that meets<br />

the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.<br />

The concept of sustainability has since been widely applied to many aspects of human society, including wide<br />

application in soil science and land management generally. As defined in the World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter, sustainable<br />

soil management comprises activities that maintain or enhance the supporting, provisioning, regulating<br />

and cultural services provided by soils without significantly impairing either the soil functions that enable<br />

those services or biodiversity. The concept of sustainable soil management is central to pillar one of the Global<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Partnership 1 : “Promote sustainable management of soil resources for soil protection, conservation, and<br />

sustainable production”.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation and threats to soil functions<br />

The concept of soil degradation and its assessment have been developed as part of more holistic assessments<br />

of human-induced degradation carried out by FAO, UNEP and other UN agencies.<br />

An early initiative was the Global Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation (GLASOD) project undertaken in the late<br />

1980s to inventory soil degradation. GLASOD evaluated 13 types of soil degradation: water erosion (topsoil<br />

loss and mass movement, including rill and gully formation), wind erosion (topsoil loss, terrain deformation<br />

– primarily dune activity), and overblowing (surface burial from aeolian deposition), loss of nutrients and/<br />

or organic matter, salinization, acidification, pollution, compaction and physical degradation, waterlogging,<br />

and subsidence of organic soils. GLASOD has not been updated (see Chapter 3 for more details).<br />

The <strong>Soil</strong> Thematic Strategy of the European Union (CEC, 2006) formalized the concept of threats to soil and<br />

its many functions. Five specific threats are identified under Article 6 of the draft <strong>Soil</strong> Framework Directive<br />

proposed in the Strategy: (1) erosion by wind and water; (2) organic matter decline; (3) compaction; (4)<br />

salinization; and (5) landslides of soil and rock material. Elsewhere in the proposed Directive, soil sealing (‘the<br />

permanent covering of the soil with an impermeable surface’ p.15) and soil contamination (‘the intentional or<br />

unintentional introduction of dangerous substances on or in the soil’ p. 18) are also identified as threats.<br />

1 The Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership was initiated by FAO and the EU in 2011. For a description of the five pillars, see Table 8.1 in Chapter 8. For a full description of<br />

the Partnership, see www.fao.org/globalsoilpartnership).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

8


<strong>Soil</strong> functions and ecosystem services<br />

The assessments of threats to soil functions leads to a need to formally identify the functions that the soil<br />

performs. The proposed <strong>Soil</strong> Framework Directive (CEC, 2006) of the European Union recognizes seven soil<br />

functions that are vulnerable to soil threats:<br />

1. biomass production, including agriculture and forestry<br />

2. storing, filtering and transforming nutrients, substances and water<br />

3. biodiversity pool, such as habitats, species and genes<br />

4. physical and cultural environment for humans and human activities<br />

5. source of raw materials<br />

6. acting as a carbon pool<br />

7. archive of geological and archaeological heritage.<br />

The EU <strong>Soil</strong> Thematic Strategy was developed at the same time as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />

(MA, 2005) initiated by the United Nations in 2000. The goal of the MA was to assess the consequences<br />

of ecosystem change for human well-being and to lay the scientific basis for actions that would promote<br />

conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems. The MA was built on the framework for ecosystem services<br />

developed by Daily, Matson and Vitousek (1997) and Costanza et al. (1997).<br />

The categories of ecosystem services were formalized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment into four<br />

broad classes: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. The range of major ecosystem<br />

services provided by soil, and the specific soil functions that enable those services, are summarized in Table 1.2.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s and natural capital<br />

The services provided by soils are primarily determined by the three core soil properties (texture, mineralogy,<br />

and organic matter), which together form the natural capital of soils (Palm et al. 2007). <strong>Soil</strong> texture and<br />

mineralogy are inherent properties of soil that are initially inherited from the parent materials and which<br />

change only very slowly over time. In a natural state, soil organic matter (SOM) reaches equilibrium with the<br />

environment in which the soil forms, but SOM responds quickly to human-induced changes. Management<br />

of SOM is central to sustainable soil management because of its rapid response to change and our ability to<br />

manipulate it.<br />

Planetary boundaries and safe operating space for humanity<br />

Specific soil processes are central to Earth-system processes that provide the safe operating space for<br />

humanity – the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’ that cannot be exceeded without causing potentially<br />

disastrous consequences for humanity (Röckstrom et al. 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). Currently stresses in the<br />

nitrogen cycle, climate change, and biodiversity loss are suggested to be beyond safe operating boundaries.<br />

Human impact on the natural reservoir of soil biodiversity and on the rate of N and C cycling in soils is a<br />

significant aspect of this stress. Whereas GLASOD had highlighted nutrient depletion through crop production<br />

without the application of sufficient manure and fertilizer to replenish nutrient loss, the concept of planetary<br />

boundaries also focuses our attention on over-application of nutrients in some regions and its consequences<br />

for atmospheric and hydrological systems. Addressing the nutrient deficit in regions such as Sub-Saharan<br />

Africa while remaining within the safe operating space for humanity requires a significant reduction of<br />

nutrient additions in area of excess inputs (Steffen et al., 2015).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

9


Biodiversity<br />

Biodiversity cuts across most of the concepts presented above, and loss of biodiversity is identified by<br />

Röckstrom et al. (2009) as one of three components currently operating beyond safe planetary boundaries.<br />

Biodiversity is more than simply an ecosystem service, even though specific benefits can be identified from the<br />

biodiversity pool. This cross-cutting importance of biodiversity was formalized in the Convention on Biological<br />

Diversity signed in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil. <strong>Soil</strong>s are<br />

widely recognized as a major reservoir of global biodiversity, and preservation of this (largely unknown) pool<br />

of biodiversity is essential.<br />

Ecosystem service<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> functions<br />

Supporting services: Services that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services; their<br />

impacts on people are often indirect or occur over a very long time<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> formation<br />

∑ Weathering of primary minerals and<br />

release of nutrients<br />

∑ Transformation and accumulation of<br />

organic matter<br />

∑ Creation of structures (aggregates,<br />

horizons) for gas and water flow and root<br />

growth<br />

∑ Creation of charged surfaces for ion<br />

retention and exchange<br />

Primary production<br />

∑ Medium for seed germination and root<br />

growth<br />

∑ Supply of nutrients and water for plants<br />

Nutrient cycling<br />

∑ Transformation of organic materials by soil<br />

organisms<br />

∑ Retention and release of nutrients on<br />

charged surfaces<br />

Regulating services: benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes<br />

Water quality regulation<br />

∑ Filtering and buffering of substances in soil<br />

water<br />

∑ Transformation of contaminants<br />

Water supply regulation<br />

∑ Regulation of water infiltration into soil<br />

and water flow within the soil<br />

∑ Drainage of excess water out of soil and<br />

into groundwater and surface water<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

10


Climate regulation<br />

∑ Regulation of CO 2<br />

, N 2<br />

O, and CH 4<br />

emissions<br />

Erosion regulation<br />

∑ Retention of soil on the land surface<br />

Provisioning Services: products (‘goods’) obtained from ecosystems of direct benefit to people<br />

Food supply<br />

∑ Providing water, nutrients, and physical<br />

support for growth of plants for human<br />

and animal consumption<br />

Water supply<br />

∑ Retention and purification of water<br />

Fibre and fuel supply<br />

∑ Providing water, nutrients, and physical<br />

support for growth of plant growth for<br />

bioenergy and fibre<br />

Raw earth material supply<br />

∑ Provision of topsoil, aggregates, peat etc.<br />

Surface stability<br />

∑ Supporting human habitations and related<br />

infrastructure<br />

Refugia<br />

∑ Providing habitat for soil animals, birds<br />

etc.<br />

Genetic resources<br />

∑ Source of unique biological materials<br />

Cultural services: nonmaterial benefits which people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual<br />

enrichment, aesthetic experiences, heritage preservation and recreation<br />

Aesthetic and spiritual<br />

∑ Preservation of natural and cultural<br />

landscape diversity<br />

∑ Source of pigments and dyes<br />

Heritage<br />

∑ Preservation of archaeological records<br />

Table 1.2: Ecosystem services provided by the soil and the soil functions that support these services.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

11


The contribution of many of the concepts outlined above is apparent throughout the World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter.<br />

This synthesis of concepts is perhaps most evident in the definition of sustainable soil management used in<br />

the World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter:<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> management is sustainable if the supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services<br />

provided by soil are maintained or enhanced without significantly impairing either the soil<br />

functions that enable those services or biodiversity.<br />

The concepts of soil functions, the threats to functions, and the ecosystem services provided by soils are<br />

central both to the structure of this book and to the content of each chapter.<br />

References<br />

Bockheim, J.G., Gennadiyev, A.N., Hammer, R.D. & Tandarich, J.P. 2005. Historical development of key<br />

concepts in pedology. Geoderma, 124: 23-36.<br />

Bouma, J. & McBratney, A.B. 2013. Framing soils as an actor when dealing with wicked environmental<br />

problems. Geoderma, 200: 130 -1 39.<br />

Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2006. Communication from the Commission to the<br />

Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the<br />

Regions. Thematic Strategy for <strong>Soil</strong> Protection. COM 231 Final, Brussels.<br />

Costanza R., d’Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill,<br />

R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services<br />

and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260.<br />

Daily, G.C., P.A. Matson & Vitousek P.M. 1997. Ecosystem services supplied by soil. In G. Daily, ed. pp. 113 -1 32.<br />

Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC, Island Press. 412 pp.<br />

FAO. 2015. World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-mn442e.pdf)<br />

Hole, F.D. & Campbell, J.B. 1985. <strong>Soil</strong> Landscape Analysis. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. 196 pp.<br />

McBratney, A. B., Field, D. J., & Koch, A. 2014. The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma, 213: 203-213.<br />

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington,<br />

DC, Island Press. 800 pp.<br />

NRC 1998. The Canadian System of <strong>Soil</strong> Classification. 3 rd ed. Canada, Ottawa. 187 pp.<br />

Palm, C., Sanchez, P., Ahamed, S. & Awiti, A. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong>s: a contemporary perspective. Annu. Rev. Environ.<br />

Resour., 32: 99 -1 29.<br />

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer,<br />

M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin,<br />

S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J.,<br />

Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. & Foley, J.A. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity.<br />

Nature, 461: 472-475.<br />

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R. , Carpenter,<br />

S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan,<br />

V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.<br />

Science, 347 (6223): 1259855. 10 pp.<br />

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment<br />

and Development: Our Common Future. UK, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 383 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil resources<br />

12


2 | The role of soils<br />

in ecosystem processes<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s play a critical role in delivering ecosystem services. Management to change an ecosystem process in<br />

support of one regulating ecosystem service can either provide co-benefits to other services or require tradeoffs<br />

(Robinson et al., 2013; Dominati, Patterson, and Mackay, 2010). Recent reviews have provided examples<br />

of some of these synergies and trade-offs (Smith et al., 2013) and illustrated the role of soils in supporting<br />

ecosystem services and underpinning natural capital (Robinson, Lebron and Vereecken, 2009, Robinson et al.,<br />

2014, Dominati, Patterson and Mackay, 2010). In this chapter, we present current knowledge – and knowledge<br />

gaps – on the role of soils in the carbon, nitrogen and water cycles, and on their role as a habitat for organisms<br />

and as a genetic pool.<br />

2.1 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and the carbon cycle<br />

Carbon (C) storage is an important ecosystem function of soils that has gained increasing attention in<br />

recent years due to its interactions with the earth’s climate system. <strong>Soil</strong> is a major C reservoir that holds more<br />

carbon than is contained in the atmosphere and terrestrial vegetation combined. All three of these reservoirs<br />

are in constant exchange. In many soils, soil organic matter (SOM), which contains roughly 55–60 percent<br />

C by mass, comprises most or all of the C stock – referred to as soil organic carbon (SOC). In arid and semiarid<br />

soils, significant inorganic C (IC) can be present as pedogenic carbonate minerals or ‘caliche’ (typically Ca/<br />

MgCO 3<br />

), formed from the reaction of biocarbonate (derived from CO 2<br />

in the soil) with free base cations, which<br />

can then be precipitated in subsoil layers (Nordt, Wilding and Drees, 2000). Also soils derived from carbonatecontaining<br />

parent material (e.g. limestone) can have significant amounts of inorganic carbon. However, in<br />

most cases changes in inorganic C stocks are slow and not amenable to traditional soil management practices.<br />

Hence inorganic carbon does not play a significant role in terms of management of ecosystem services. For<br />

this reason, the further discussion of soil C in this chapter will focus on soil organic carbon.<br />

A general overview of the ecosystem C cycle as it interacts with soils is given in Figure 2.1. The major input of<br />

organic C to soils is provided by the uptake and fixation of CO 2<br />

by plants (the net result of photosynthesis and<br />

above- and below-ground plant respiration), and by the subsequent incorporation of plant residue C (both<br />

above- and below-ground) into soil. Some of the fixed plant C may be removed by harvest before entering the<br />

soil. Conversely, C additions from offsite sources (e.g. compost, manure) may occur. Organic matter on and<br />

in the soil is subject to comminution and mixing by soil fauna and to enzymatic breakdown and metabolism<br />

by microorganisms, resulting in release of CO 2<br />

via microbial respiration (also referred to as organic carbon<br />

mineralization). Microbial transformations as well as interactions of organic matter with soil minerals greatly<br />

influence the stabilization of organic C and its rate of mineralization. In flooded soils, emissions of methane<br />

(CH 4<br />

) from microbial metabolism can represent a significant gaseous C efflux. Erosion can also directly<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

13


affect the soil C balance through the removal and/or deposition of the C contained in the transported soil.<br />

Leaching of dissolved organic (DOC) and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) through the soil profile and out into<br />

groundwater and surface water represents an additional loss pathway that can be significant in some soils.<br />

Maintaining and increasing SOC stocks through improved land use and management practices can help<br />

to counteract increasing atmospheric CO 2<br />

concentrations (Paustian et al., 1998, Smith et al., 2007; Whitmore,<br />

Kirk and Rawlins, 2014). Increasing soil C content also improves other chemical and physical soil properties,<br />

such as nutrient storage, water holding capacity, aggregation and sorption of organic and/or inorganic<br />

pollutants (Kibblewhite, Ritz and Swift, 2008). Carbon sequestration in soils may therefore be a cost-effective<br />

and environmentally friendly way to store C. It can also enhance other ecosystem services derived from soil,<br />

such as agricultural production, clean water supply, and biodiversity by increasing SOM content and thereby<br />

improving soil quality (Lal, 2004).<br />

O site OM<br />

additions<br />

Plant<br />

photosynthesis<br />

CO 2<br />

CO 2<br />

Plant<br />

respiration<br />

Harvest<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> deposition<br />

Litter<br />

fall<br />

SOM<br />

turnover and<br />

stabilization<br />

Decomposition &<br />

microbial<br />

respiration<br />

CO 2<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

Drawing by A. Swan and K. Paustian<br />

DOC & DIC<br />

Figure 2.1 Overview of ecosystem processes involved in determining the soil C balance.<br />

2.1.1 | Quantitative amounts of organic C stored in soil<br />

Organic C stocks in the world’s soils have been estimated to comprise 1 500 Pg of C down to 1 m depth and<br />

2 500 Pg down to 2 m (Batjes, 1996). Recent studies, based on newer estimates for the C stored in boreal<br />

soils under permafrost conditions, suggest that soil C storage may be even greater, accounting for as much as<br />

2000 Pg to 1 m depth (Tarnocai et al., 2009). Although the highest C concentrations are found in the top 30<br />

cm of soil, the major proportion of total C stock in many soils is present below 30 cm depth (Batjes, 1996). In<br />

the northern circumpolar permafrost region, at least 61 percent of the total soil C is stored below 30 cm depth<br />

(Tarnocai et al., 2009).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

14


2.1.2 | Nature and formation of soil organic C<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic matter (SOM) is composed of plant litter compounds as well as of microbial decomposition<br />

products. SOM is thus a complex biogeochemical mixture derived from organic material in all stages of<br />

decomposition (von Lützow et al., 2006; Paul, 2014). Due to microbial degradation and mineralization to<br />

CO 2<br />

(and CH 4<br />

in anaerobic environments), the majority of plant litter compounds added to soil remain for a<br />

relatively short time (from a few days to a few years). This is particularly the case if the organic compounds<br />

are added on the soil surface. However, some organic matter compounds may persist in the soil for decades or<br />

centuries or even for millennia (Paul et al., 1997; von Lützow et al., 2006). It is increasingly accepted that, despite<br />

their recalcitrant nature, plant litter compounds (e.g. lignin) themselves do not substantially contribute to<br />

SOM persistence in soil (Thévenot, Dignac and Rumpel, 2010). Longer term stabilization is generally conferred<br />

through interactions with soil minerals (e.g. through surface binding or occlusion within microaggregates),<br />

which reduce SOM exposure to enzymatic degradation (Sollins, Homann and Caldwell, 1996; Six, Elliott and<br />

Paustian, 2000; Schmidt et al., 2011). Thus, the location of SOM within the soil matrix has a much stronger<br />

influence on its turnover than its chemical composition (Chabbi, Kögel-Knabner and Rumpel, 2009; Dungait<br />

et al., 2012)<br />

One consequence of the role of reactive mineral surfaces in SOC stabilization is that the surface area of<br />

the soil mineral fraction, which is finite and a function of soil texture (e.g. clay, silt or sand content) and of<br />

mineralogy, may set an upper limit for the amount of SOM that a particular soil can hold (Six, Elliott and<br />

Paustian, 2002). A recent conceptual model (Figure 2.2) by Cotrufo et al. (2013), based on studies showing<br />

that microbially-derived decomposition products make up most of the mineral-stabilized organic matter,<br />

postulates that relatively labile litter compounds with higher microbial growth yield efficiency contribute<br />

proportionally more to the stable mineral-associated SOM pool than do more recalcitrant plant compounds<br />

with low microbial growth yield efficiency. This concept is in agreement with the current understanding that<br />

microbial material is building up much of the stabilised SOM pool (Miltner et al., 2012).<br />

Figure 2.2<br />

Conceptual model of<br />

interactions between litter<br />

quality, microbial products<br />

and soil mineral interactions<br />

affecting the formation<br />

and stabilization of organic<br />

matter.<br />

Source: Cotrufo et al., 2013.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

15


With this emphasis on the importance of SOM location within the soil, microbial accessibility of organic<br />

material at very small scales has become a focus of research in recent years (Lehmann, Kinyangi and Solomon,<br />

2007). The development of powerful new tools like X-ray spectroscopy and secondary ion mass spectrometry<br />

now allows the visualisation of organo-mineral interactions at nanoscale. As a result, the location and<br />

distribution of organic matter within the soil mineral matrix may now be assessed in more detail (Lehmann et<br />

al., 2008). However, before the results obtained with these tools yield information concerning soil C formation<br />

at macroscale, upscaling and integration of spatial heterogeneity is necessary (Mueller et al., 2013).<br />

As well as exhibiting tremendous heterogeneity in terms of its composition, the distribution of SOC within<br />

the soil is also very heterogeneous, particularly with respect to depth within the soil profile. Whereas upper<br />

soil layers receive greater amounts of aboveground litter (‘shoot C’ from leaves and stems), subsoil C originates<br />

primarily from root-derived C as well as from plant- and microbial-derived dissolved organic carbon (DOC)<br />

transported down the soil profile. Root C has a greater likelihood of being preserved in soil compared to shoot<br />

C (Balesdant and Balabane, 1996) and studies suggest that root C therefore accounts for a larger proportion<br />

of SOM (Rasse, Rumpel and Dignac, 2005). In general, C cycling and C formation is most active in topsoil<br />

horizons, whereas stabilised C with longer turnover times makes up a greater proportion of the total SOC<br />

found in deep soil horizons (Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann, 1989; Trumbore, 2009). The accumulation<br />

of stabilised C with long residence times in deep soil horizons may be due to continuous transport, temporary<br />

immobilisation and microbial processing of DOC within the soil profile (Kalbitz and Kaiser, 2012) and/or<br />

efficient stabilisation of root-derived organic matter within the soil matrix (Rasse, Rumpel and Dignac, 2005).<br />

An additional long-term C pool in many soils is pyrogenic carbonaceous matter, formed from partially<br />

carbonised (e.g., pyrolysed) biomass during wildfires (Schmidt and Noack, 2000). A portion of this material<br />

has a highly condensed aromatic chemical structure (often referred to as pyrogenic carbon or black carbon)<br />

that resists microbial degradation and can persist in soils for long periods (Lehmann et al., 2015).<br />

2.1.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> C pools<br />

For modelling purposes, soil C is usually divided into a number of pools (typically from two to five) in order<br />

to represent the heterogeneity in residence time of the vast mixture of different organic compounds in soil<br />

(Smith et al., 1997). A useful three pool split of soil C (excluding litter) – into a labile pool, an intermediate pool,<br />

and a refractory (stable) pool – is employed in several soil C models, including the Century model (Parton et<br />

al., 1987). The labile pool represents easily degradable plant material, microbial biomass and labile metabolites,<br />

and may turn over within a few months or years. Conceptually, the intermediate pool comprises microbiallyprocessed<br />

organic matter that is partially stabilized on mineral surfaces and/or protected within aggregates,<br />

with turnover times in the range of decades. The refractory pool, including highly stabilized organic mattermineral<br />

complexes and pyrogenic C, may remain in soils for centuries or millennia.<br />

Individual model pools (as opposed to the total C stock) are typically not defined as measureable pools per<br />

se. The kinetics of the model conceptual pools are instead inferred from C dating and tracer studies, laboratory<br />

incubations and total SOC dynamics in long-term field experiments (McGill, 1996; Paustian, 1994). Many<br />

carbon cycle, ecosystem and crop growth models successfully employ this type of functional representation of<br />

SOM (Krull, Baldock and Skjemstad, 2003; Stockman et al., 2013). Nonetheless, ways to reconcile ‘measurable’<br />

and ‘modelable’ pools have been under discussion for a number of years (Elliott, Paustian and Frey, 1996; Smith<br />

et al., 2002; Dungait et al., 2012). This reconciliation remains a desirable goal for improving understanding of<br />

SOC dynamics (Schmidt et al., 2011).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

16


2.1.4 | Factors influencing soil C storage<br />

Fundamentally, the amount of SOC stored in a given soil is determined by the balance of C entering the<br />

soil, mainly via plant residues and exudates, and C leaving the soil through mineralization (as CO 2<br />

), driven<br />

by microbial processes, and to a lesser extent leaching out of the soil as DOC. Locally C can also be lost or<br />

gained through soil erosion or deposition (Figure 2.1), leading to a redistribution of soil C at local, landscape<br />

and regional scales.<br />

Consequently, a main control on SOC storage is the amount and type of residues that are produced by<br />

plants as the primary producers in the ecosystem. Plant productivity and subsequent senescence and death<br />

lead, through plant necromass breakdown, to the input of organic C to the soil system. Thus, broadly speaking<br />

for a given pedoclimatic condition, higher levels of plant residue inputs will tend to support higher SOC stocks,<br />

and vice versa. C levels of many soils are also influenced by fertiliser additions, which are indispensable for<br />

sustaining plant productivity in agricultural systems.<br />

In addition to productivity and plant C inputs, climatic factors, such as soil temperature and water content<br />

greatly influence soil C storage through their effect on microbial activity. In general, higher soil temperatures<br />

increase microbial decomposition of organic matter. Temperature is, therefore, taken as major control of<br />

SOM storage in soil C cycle models, although the temperature sensitivity of decomposition for different SOM<br />

fractions remains an area of uncertainty (Conant et al., 2011).<br />

Water also influences soil C storage through several processes. Moist but well-aerated soils are optimal<br />

for microbial activity. Decomposition rates consequently decrease as soils become drier. However, flooded<br />

soils have lower rates of organic matter decay due to restricted aeration (e.g. O 2<br />

depletion due to limited<br />

O 2<br />

diffusion in water) and thus may often yield soils with very high amounts of soil C (e.g. peat and muck<br />

soils). High precipitation may also lead to C transport down the soil profile as dissolved and/or particulate<br />

organic matter. During extreme events, such as drought, SOM decomposition may initially decrease but may<br />

subsequently increase after rewetting (Borken and Matzner, 2008). Fire may decrease soil C storage at first,<br />

but over the longer term may increase C storage through positive effects on plant growth and through input<br />

of very stable pyrogenic C (Knicker, 2007).<br />

The quantity and composition of SOC in mineral soils is also strongly dependent on soil type, with clay<br />

content influencing not only the amount but also the composition of soil C. In clay rich soils, higher organic<br />

matter content and a higher concentration of O-alkyl C derived from polysaccharides may be expected,<br />

compared to sandy soils which are characterised by lower C contents and high concentrations of alkyl C<br />

(Rumpel and Kögel-Knabner, 2011). Aliphatic material may contribute to the hydrophobicity of soils, which<br />

could lead to reduced microbial accessibility and therefore increased C storage.<br />

Bioturbation (the reworking of soils by animals or plants) may further influence the amount as well as<br />

the chemical nature of soil C. It may greatly influence the heterogeneity of soils by creating hotspots. On<br />

biologically active sites, incorporation and transformation of organic compounds into soil is usually enhanced<br />

by bioturbation, leading to organo-mineral interactions and increase of C storage (Wilkinson, Richards and<br />

Humphreys, 2009).<br />

Microbial decomposition of SOM may be stimulated (or reduced) by labile organic matter input through<br />

the ‘priming effect’ (Jenkinson, 1971; Kuzyakov, 2002). Positive priming refers to mineralisation of otherwise<br />

stable C through shifts in microbial community composition (Fontaine, Mariotti and Abbadie et al., 2003).<br />

However, in some cases, the addition of organic matter to soil may also cause changes in the soil microbial<br />

communities with regard to the preferentially degraded substrate and therefore impede mineralisation of<br />

native SOM (Sparling, Cheschire and Mundie, 1982; Kuzyakov, 2002).<br />

Plant communities are main controlling factors of these processes because they influence organic matter<br />

input and microbial activity by their effects on soil water, labile C input, pH and nutrient cycling.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

17


2.1.5 | Carbon cycle: knowledge gaps and research needs<br />

Substantial progress has been made in recent years towards a deeper understanding of the processes<br />

controlling soil C storage. There has been progress also in improving and deploying predictive models of soil<br />

C dynamics that can guide decision makers and inform policy. However, it is equally true that many new (and<br />

some old) gaps in our knowledge have been identified and the need for further research has been assessed.<br />

Recent research on soil C dynamics has been driven in part by increasing awareness of: (1) the importance<br />

of small scale variability for microbial C turnover (Vogel et al., 2014); (2) interactions between the C cycle and<br />

other biogeochemical cycles (Gärdenäs et al., 2011); and (3) the importance of soil C not only at the field scale<br />

but at regional to global scales (Todd-Brown et al., 2013).<br />

The most cited knowledge gaps and research needs include:<br />

Basic understanding<br />

• Controls on microbial efficiency of organic matter processing, including biodiversity<br />

• The degree of association or separation of organic matter and microbial decomposer communities in<br />

the mineral soil matrix<br />

• Role of soil fauna in controlling carbon storage and cycling<br />

• Dynamics of dissolved organic carbon and its role in determining C storage and decomposition<br />

• Pyrogenic C stabilization and interactions of pyrogenic C with native soil C and mineral nutrients<br />

• Role of soil erosion in the global C cycle<br />

Predictive modelling and assessment<br />

• Reconciliation of measured and modelled SOM fractions<br />

• More explicit representation of microbial controls<br />

• Improved modelling of C in subsurface soil layers<br />

• Distributed soil C observational and monitoring networks for model validation<br />

• More realistic and spatially-resolved representation of soil C in global-scale models<br />

2.1.6 | Concluding remarks<br />

Both biotic and abiotic factors control soil C content and dynamics through their effect on plant litter inputs<br />

and microbial decomposer communities. The understanding of the C cycle and the role of soils as a sink or source<br />

of CO 2<br />

depends on our ability to integrate knowledge of physical, chemical and biological processes operating<br />

at small scales (nm, µm, soil profile) and of the spatial heterogeneity of SOM distribution and decomposition<br />

processes at increasing scales (field, region, globe). At the global scale, soils are a major component of the<br />

planet’s C cycle and can have a strong influence on the concentration of CO 2<br />

in the atmosphere. Thus, land<br />

management needs to be based on an understanding of the controls on SOM distribution, stabilisation and<br />

turnover in order to safeguard and increase the organic matter content of our soils. This will be an important<br />

contribution to both food security and the mitigation of greenhouse gases.<br />

2.2 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and the nutrient cycle<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s support plant growth and so are vital to humanity. They provide nutrients such as nitrogen (N),<br />

phosphorous (P), potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Sulphur (S) and many trace elements that<br />

support biomass production. Biomass is important for food supply, for energy and fibre production and as a<br />

(future) source for the chemical industry. Since the 1950s, higher biomass production and yield increases have<br />

been supported through mineral/synthetic fertilization (Figure 2.3). However, intensification of agricultural<br />

practices and of land use has in many regions resulted in a decline in the content of organic matter content<br />

in agricultural soils. In some areas, extensive use of mineral fertilizers has resulted in atmospheric pollution,<br />

greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO 2<br />

and N 2<br />

O), water eutrophication and human health risks (Galloway et al.,<br />

2008).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

18


In coming years, human population and demand for food, feed and energy will continue to rise. In order to<br />

sustain biomass production in the future and to mitigate negative environmental impacts, fertile soils need<br />

to be preserved. Where soil fertility has declined, it needs to be restored by maintaining sufficient amounts<br />

of organic matter in soils (Janzen, 2006). This can be achieved by measures of sustainable management (see<br />

Chapter 8 of this volume), including by targeted additions of mineral and organic amendments to soils.<br />

The soil function ‘fertility’ refers to the ability of soil to support and sustain plant growth, including through<br />

making N, P and other nutrients available for plant uptake. This process is facilitated by: (i) nutrient storage<br />

in soil organic matter; (ii) nutrient recycling from organic to plant-available mineral forms; and (iii) physical<br />

and chemical processes that control nutrient sorption, availability, displacement and eventual losses to the<br />

atmosphere and water.<br />

Managed soils represent a highly dynamic system and it is this very dynamism that makes soils function<br />

and supply ecosystem services. Overall, the fertility and functioning of soils depend on interactions between<br />

the soil mineral matrix, plants and microbes. These are responsible for both building and decomposing SOM<br />

and therefore for the preservation and availability of nutrients in soils. To sustain soil functions, the balanced<br />

cycling of nutrients in soils must be maintained.<br />

After carbon (Section 2.1), N is the most abundant nutrient in all forms of life, since it is contained in proteins,<br />

nucleic acids and other compounds. Humans and animals ultimately acquire their N from plants, which in<br />

terrestrial ecosystems occurs mostly in mineral form (e.g. NH 4<br />

+ and NO 3<br />

‐ ) in soils. The parent material of<br />

soils does not contain significant amounts of N (as opposed to P and other nutrients). New N enters the soil<br />

through the fixation of atmospheric N 2<br />

by a specialized group of soil biota. However, the largest flux of N in<br />

Figure 2.3 Global (a) nitrogen (N) and (b) phosphorus (P) fertilizer use between 1961 and 2012 split for the different continents in Mt P<br />

per year. Source: FAO, 2015.<br />

soils is generated through the continuous recycling of N internal to the plant-soil system: soil mineral N is<br />

taken up by the plant, it is fixed into biomass, and eventually N returns in the form of plant debris to the soil.<br />

Here soil biota decompose it, mineralizing part of the N and making it newly available for plant growth, while<br />

transforming the other part into SOM, which ultimately is the largest stock of stable N in soil. Nitrogen is lost<br />

from the soil to the water system by leaching and to the atmosphere by gas efflux (NH 3<br />

, N 2<br />

O and N 2<br />

).<br />

In most natural ecosystems, N availability is a limiting factor to productivity and N cycles tightly in the<br />

system with minimal losses. Through the cultivation of N 2<br />

fixing crops, the production and application of<br />

synthetic N fertilizer, and the deposition of atmospheric N, humans have applied twice as much reactive N<br />

to soils as the N introduced by natural processes, thereby significantly increasing biomass production on land<br />

(Vitousek and Matson, 1993). However, since mineral fertilizer use efficiency is generally low and far more<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

19


fertilizer is often used than plants actually need, a high percentage of N fertilizer is lost from the soil. This is<br />

generating a myriad of deleterious cascade effects on the environment and on human health (Galloway et al.,<br />

2008). This phenomenon is spread over most of the globe. However, in some regions of the world, in particular<br />

Sub-Saharan Africa, which are characterized by eroded soils and where economic constraints limit the use of<br />

fertilizers, productivity is still strongly constrained by low levels of soil-available N and other nutrients, notably<br />

P (Figure 2.2).<br />

Phosphorus is an essential element for all living organisms. It cycles internally in the plant-soil system, moving<br />

from the parent material through weathering to biochemical molecules (e.g. nucleic acid, phospholipids) and<br />

back to mineral forms after decomposition (e.g. H 3<br />

PO 4<br />

). In natural soils P is among the most limiting nutrients,<br />

since it is present in small amounts and only available in its soluble forms, which promptly react with calcium,<br />

iron and aluminum cations to precipitate as highly insoluble compounds. Adsorbed on those compounds, P<br />

can be lost from soils, entering the aquatic system through erosion and surface runoff. To correct this lack of<br />

available P, ‘primary’ P is mined and added to soils in the form of mineral fertilizer. This external input has led to<br />

positive agronomic P balances (McDonald et al., 2011). There are, however, large variations in the world, with<br />

large surpluses in the United States, Europe and Asia, and deficits in Russia, Africa and South-America (Figure<br />

2.4). Additionally, since plant P uptake is a relatively inefficient process with roughly 60 percent of the total P<br />

input to soils not taken up, it has been estimated that the amount of P exported from terrestrial to aquatic<br />

systems has tripled, with significant impacts on the environment (Bennett, Carpenter and Caraco, 2001).<br />

Figure 2.4 Applied and excess nitrogen and phosphorus in croplands. Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs and excess were calculated<br />

using a simple mass balance model, extended to include 175 crops. To account for both the rate and spatial extent of croplands, the<br />

data are presented as kg per ha of the landscape: (a) applied nitrogen, including N deposition; (b) applied phosphorus; (c) excess<br />

nitrogen; and (d) excess phosphorus. Source: West et al., 2014.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

20


Management practices need to be implemented that sustain, restore or increase soil fertility and biomass<br />

production while limiting associated negative impacts. This can be achieved by promoting the accrual of soil<br />

organic matter and nutrient recycling, applying balanced C amendments and fertilization of N, P and other<br />

nutrients to meet plant and soil requirements, while limiting overuse of fertilizer. Carbon, N and P cycling in<br />

soils is coupled by tight stoichiometric relationships (e.g. relatively fixed C:N:P in plants and microorganisms).<br />

This means that an enduring increase or decrease of carbon in soils cannot be achieved without a proportional<br />

change in nitrogen and phosphorous (and several other nutrients). This is a fundamental consideration in any<br />

programs for carbon sequestration and land restoration because of the significant costs. Therefore, their<br />

management needs to be planned in concert.<br />

Nutrient management has been extensively studied, with the aim of identifying and proposing management<br />

practices (e.g. precision agriculture) that improve nutrient use efficiency and productivity while reducing<br />

potentially harmful losses to the environment (van Groenigen et al., 2010; Venterea, Maharjan and Dolan,<br />

2011). However, our ability to predict the ecosystem response to balanced fertilization is still limited and the<br />

relationship requires continued monitoring. Further benefits are anticipated from improved plant varieties<br />

with root morphologies that have better capacity to extract P from soils or use it more efficiently.<br />

More generally, further research is needed into organic matter responses to agricultural C inputs and<br />

into the potential for restoring and increasing soil organic matter to promote long term soil fertility (e.g.<br />

Lugato, Berti and Giardini, 2006). Hence, we stress the importance of an integrated approach to nutrient<br />

management which supports plant productivity while preserving or enhancing soil organic matter stocks and<br />

reducing nutrient losses to the atmosphere or aquatic systems. Prediction and optimization of performance<br />

would benefit from continued data acquisition across the whole range of climate and environmental and<br />

agro-ecological conditions.<br />

2.2.1 | The nutrient cycle: knowledge gaps and research needs<br />

In the second half of the 20th century, higher biomass yields were supported by higher use of fertilizer<br />

(N, P) inputs. This is now considered unsustainable in many situations. Alternatives are required that make<br />

better use of inherent soil fertility, improve resource use efficiency, and prevent losses of N and P. Examples in<br />

agriculture include sustainable intensification and new crop varieties that have root systems with improved<br />

extraction capability or which have higher internal P use efficiency. At the food system level, more effective<br />

nutrient management would benefit from a focus on a ‘5R strategy’: (1) realign P and N inputs; (2) reduce P<br />

and N losses to water, thereby minimizing eutrophication impacts; (3) recycle the P and N in bio-resources; (4)<br />

recover P and N from wastes to use as fertilizer; and (5) redefine use and use-efficiency of P in the food chain<br />

(Withers et al., 2015).<br />

In addition, a better understanding of biogeochemical processes at the molecular level is needed. This<br />

should include: (i) research into the role of plant symbionts on the weathering of minerals and support of<br />

nutrient uptake, and (ii) development of target-specific ‘smart’ agrochemical agents that enhance nutrient<br />

uptake.<br />

2.3 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and the water cycle<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s provide important ecosystem services through their function within the water cycle. These services include<br />

provisioning services of food and water security, regulating services associated with moderation and purification of water<br />

flows, and cultural services such as landscapes and water bodies that meet recreation and aesthetic values (Dymond,<br />

2014). Water stored in soil is used for the evapotranspiration and plant growth that supply food and fibre. <strong>Soil</strong> water also<br />

stabilizes the land surface to prevent erosion and regulates nutrient and contaminant flow. At a catchment and basin<br />

scale, the capacity of the soil to infiltrate water attenuates stream and river flows and can prevent flooding, while water<br />

that percolates through soil can replenish groundwater and related streamflow and surface water ecosystems.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

21


The soil functions of accepting, storing, transmitting and cleaning of water shown in Table 2.1 are interrelated.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> water storage depends on the rate of infiltration into the soil and on soil hydraulic conductivity<br />

that redistributes water within and through the soil profile. Similarly, infiltration and hydraulic conductivity<br />

are dependent on the water stored in the soil. The initially high rate of infiltration into dry soil declines as<br />

the soil water content increases and water replaces air in the pore space. Conversely, hydraulic conductivity<br />

increases with soil moisture content as a greater proportion of the pores are transmitting water. Water<br />

content and transmission times are also important to the filtering function of soil because contact with soil<br />

surfaces and residence time in soil are controls on contaminant supply and removal.<br />

Optimum growth of most plants occurs when roots can access both oxygen and water in the soil. The soil<br />

must therefore infiltrate water, drain quickly when saturated to allow air to reach plant roots, and retain and<br />

redistribute water for plant use. The ideal soil for plant production depends on climatic conditions and on the<br />

soil requirements of the crop. For instance, in dry regions it can be an advantage to have soils with a high clay<br />

content to retain water, while sandier soils that drain quickly are better suited to wetter regions.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> structural stability and porosity are also important for the infiltration of water into soil. Organic matter<br />

improves soil aggregate stability. While plant growth and surface mulches can help protect the soil surface,<br />

a stable, well-aggregated soil structure that resists surface sealing and continues to infiltrate water during<br />

intense rainfall events will decrease the potential for downstream flooding. Porosity determines the capacity<br />

of the soil to retain water and controls transmission of water through the soil. In addition to total porosity, the<br />

continuity and structure of the pore network are important to these functions and also to the further function<br />

of filtering out contaminants in flow.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Function Mechanism Consequence Ecosystem service<br />

Stores<br />

(Storage)<br />

Water held in soil pores<br />

supports plant and<br />

microbial communities<br />

Biomass production<br />

Surface protection<br />

Food<br />

Aesthetics<br />

Erosion control<br />

Accepts<br />

(Sorptivity)<br />

Incident water<br />

infiltrates into soil with<br />

excess lost as runoff<br />

Storm runoff reduction<br />

Erosion control<br />

Flood protection<br />

Transmits<br />

(Hydraulic conductivity)<br />

Water entering the soil<br />

is redistributed and<br />

excess is transmitted as<br />

deep percolation<br />

Percolation to<br />

groundwater<br />

Groundwater recharge<br />

Stream flow<br />

maintenance<br />

Cleans<br />

(Filtering)<br />

Water passing through<br />

the soil matrix interacts<br />

with soil particles and<br />

biota<br />

Contaminants<br />

removed by biological<br />

degradation/retention<br />

on sorption sites<br />

Water quality<br />

Table 2. <strong>Soil</strong> functions related to the water cycle and ecosystem services<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

22


Another important role of soil water is its support of biota that can degrade compounds into beneficial<br />

forms that may also retain nutrients. <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter is important to this role - together with mineral<br />

soil (especially the clay fraction), SOM provides sorption sites, but sorption capacity is finite. Flow through<br />

macropores that bypass the soil matrix where biota and sorption sites are generally located can quickly<br />

transmit water and contaminants through the soil to groundwater or artificial drains. However, for filtering<br />

purposes a longer, slower route through the soil matrix is more effective.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> management alters the ecosystem services provided by water (Table 2.2). <strong>Soil</strong> conservation practices<br />

and sustainable management help to retain regulating ecosystem services such as soil organic matter and<br />

structural stability. Similarly, the promotion of soil as a C-sink to offset greenhouse gas emissions helps to<br />

maintain or improve soil functions. On the other hand, deforestation, overgrazing and excessive tillage of<br />

fragile lands lead to deterioration of the soil structure and to loss of soil function and surface water quality<br />

(Steinfield et al., 2006).<br />

Anthropogenic modifications to the water cycle can aid soil function. In dry regimes, inadequate soil<br />

moisture can be mitigated through supplementary irrigation, and where excessive precipitation causes<br />

problems, waterlogging can be relieved by land drainage. However, irrigation and drainage can have<br />

consequences for water regulation services. Irrigation that enables a shift to intensive land use can increase<br />

the contaminant load of runoff and drainage water (McDowell et al., 2014). Furthermore, drainage of wetland<br />

soils has been shown to reduce water and contaminant storage capacity in the landscape and can increase<br />

the potential for downstream flooding. The abstraction of surface or groundwater for irrigation disrupts the<br />

natural water cycle and may stress downstream ecosystems and communities. Irrigation of agricultural lands<br />

accounts for about 70 percent of ground and surface water withdrawals, and in some regions competition for<br />

water resources is forcing irrigators to tap unsustainable sources. Irrigation with wastewater may conserve<br />

fresh water resources but brings the risk of water-borne contaminants in soil and crops (Sato et al., 2013) and<br />

the accumulation of salts in some environments.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

23


Management<br />

(global trend)<br />

Provisioning Regulating Cultural<br />

Land use change<br />

(agricultural to urban)<br />

Decreased biomass,<br />

decreased availability of<br />

water for agricultural<br />

use<br />

Increased impervious<br />

surface, decreased<br />

infiltration, storage,<br />

soil-mediated water<br />

regulation<br />

Decreased natural<br />

environment<br />

Increased C<br />

Land use change<br />

(increase in change<br />

of arable to intensive<br />

grassland)<br />

Land use change<br />

(increase in change<br />

of arable to intensive<br />

grassland)<br />

sequestration, greater<br />

requirement for water,<br />

stress on ecosystem<br />

health of downstream<br />

waterways<br />

Irrigation (increase)<br />

Increased biomass over<br />

dryland agriculture,<br />

decreased availability of<br />

water for urban use<br />

Increased C<br />

sequestration, but<br />

decreased filtration<br />

potential<br />

Infrastructure alters<br />

landscape<br />

Drainage (increase in<br />

marginal land)<br />

Decreased soil<br />

saturation, increased<br />

biomass, reduction in<br />

wetlands<br />

Decreased C<br />

sequestration,<br />

denitrification and flood<br />

attenuation<br />

Decreased recreational<br />

potential (e.g.<br />

ecotourism)<br />

Table 2.2 Examples of global trends in soil management (Steinfield et al., 2006; Setälä et al., 2014) and their effects on the ecosystem<br />

services mediated by water.<br />

The soil management practices to maintain the ecosystem services of food and water security and flow<br />

regulation within the soil and water cycle are reasonably well established. However, their application is not<br />

universal and poor management leads to a loss of function. Under climate change scenarios of increased<br />

climatic variability with more extremes of precipitation, soil functions will be stressed and better soil<br />

management will be required (Walthall et al., 2012).<br />

2.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> as a habitat for organisms and a genetic pool<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s represent a physically and chemically complex and heterogeneous habitat supporting a high diversity<br />

of microbial and faunal taxa. For example, 10 g of soil contains about 1010 bacterial cells of more than 106<br />

species (Gans et al., 2005), and an estimated 360 000 species of animals are dwellers in soil (Decaëns et al.,<br />

2006). These complex communities of organisms play critical roles in sustaining soil and wider ecosystem<br />

functioning, thus conferring a multitude of benefits to global cycles and human sustainability. Specifically,<br />

soil biodiversity is critical to food and fibre production. It is also an important regulator of other vital soil<br />

services including nutrient cycling, moderation of greenhouse gas emissions, and water purification (Wall et<br />

al., 2012). It is also recognized that the stocks of soil biodiversity represent an important biological and genetic<br />

resource for biotechnological exploitation (Brevik and Sauer, 2015). Previous methodological challenges in<br />

characterizing soil biodiversity are now being overcome through the use of molecular technologies. As a result<br />

significant progress is currently being made in opening the ‘black box’ of soil biodiversity (Allison and Martiny,<br />

2008), particularly in assessing the normal operating ranges of soil biodiversity under different soil, climatic<br />

and land use scenarios. Addressing these knowledge gaps is of fundamental importance, both as an entry<br />

point to understanding wider soil processes and as a way to gauge the likely consequences of land use or<br />

climatic change on both biodiversity and soil ecosystem services.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

24


The development of molecular technologies has aided morphological characterisations and allowed<br />

quantification of stocks and changes in soil biodiversity. This has led to a surge in studies characterizing soil<br />

biodiversity at different scales – from large landscape-scale surveys to locally focused studies. The largescale<br />

surveys yield the broader picture, and conclusions are emerging identifying the importance of soil<br />

parameters in shaping the biodiversity of soil communities (Fierer and Jackson, 2006). In essence, the same<br />

geological, climatic and biotic parameters that ultimately dictate pedogenesis are also involved in shaping<br />

the communities of soil biota and thus in regulating the spatial structure of soil communities observed<br />

over large areas (Griffiths et al., 2011). Locally focused experimentation then typically reveals more specific<br />

changes in broad taxonomic features with respect, for example, to local changes in land use or climate.<br />

Many studies have focused on assessing one component of soil diversity, but even greater advances utilizing<br />

next-generation high throughput sequencing now allow the analysis of ‘whole soil foodwebs’. This permits a<br />

thorough interrogation of trophic and co-occurrence interaction networks. The challenge is to consolidate<br />

both approaches at different scales to understand the differing susceptibility of global soil biomes to change.<br />

Alongside these new developments in assessing biodiversity, it is essential to link the biodiversity<br />

characteristics measured to specific soil functions. This helps understanding the pivotal roles of soil organisms in<br />

mediating soil services. The development of stable isotope tracer methodologies (e.g. Radajewski et al., 2000)<br />

to link substrate utilization to the identified active members in situ serves to clarify the physiological activity of<br />

these soil organisms. Additionally, improved sequencing techniques are now becoming an increasingly costeffective<br />

for assessing the biodiversity of functional genes in soils for both eukaryotes and prokaryotes (Fierer<br />

et al., 2013). This potentially allows a more trait-based approach to understanding soil biodiversity, akin to<br />

recent approaches applied to larger and more readily functionally understood organisms above-ground. It is<br />

becoming increasingly apparent that often, as is typical in natural ecosystems, functionality and biodiversity<br />

co-vary with other environmental parameters. Further manipulative experimentation is required to determine<br />

the fundamental roles of soil biodiversity versus other co-varying factors in driving soil functionality.<br />

Clearly, we are learning more and more about how global change affects soil biodiversity and functioning.<br />

Global-scale syntheses on soil biodiversity are still lacking, but projects such as the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Biodiversity<br />

Atlas (European Commission, 2015) are combining information from across the globe and making it publicly<br />

available. However, much remains to be done. More than 20 years ago, many of these issues were raised (for<br />

example, in Furusaka, 1993), and to date many of the factors involved have yet to be unravelled. A key barrier<br />

to achieving syntheses is the lack of concerted soil surveys that address multiple functions using standardized<br />

methodologies.<br />

New technologies for soil biodiversity assessment generate large sequence datasets that are typically<br />

archived in publicly accessible databases. However, morphological datasets remain largely unpublished.<br />

The best approach to addressing the gaps would be to adopt agreed standard operating procedures for soil<br />

function measurements (e.g. as developed in the recent EU-funded EcoFINDERS project) and to ensure that<br />

results are widely accessible.<br />

Ultimately the new methods are revealing the high sensitivity of changes in soil biological and genetic<br />

resources to threats such as poor management. We now need to recognize the distinct types of organisms<br />

found in different soils globally, and to understand their functional roles in order to predict vulnerability of<br />

these resources to future change.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

25


References<br />

Allison, S.D. & Martiny, J.B.H. 2008. Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities.<br />

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US, 105: 11512 -1 1519.<br />

Balesdant, J. & Balabane M. 1996. Major contribution of roots to soil carbon storage inferred from maize<br />

cultivated soils. <strong>Soil</strong> Biol. Biochem., 28:1261 -1 263.<br />

Batjes, N.H. 1996. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European Journalof <strong>Soil</strong> Science,<br />

47: 151 -1 63.<br />

Bennett, E., Carpenter, S.R. & Caraco, N.F. 2001. Human Impact on Erodable Phosphorus and<br />

Eutrophication: A Global Perspective. BioScience, 51: 227-234.<br />

Borken, W. & Matzner, E. 2008. Reappraisal of drying and wetting effects on C and N mineralization and<br />

fluxes in soils. Global Change Biology, 15: 808-824.<br />

Brevik, E.C. & Sauer, T.J. 2015. The Past, Present, and Future of <strong>Soil</strong>s and Human Health Studies.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>, 1: 35-46.<br />

Chabbi, A., Kögel-Knabner, I. & Rumpel, C. 2009. Stabilised carbon in subsoil horizons is located in<br />

spatially distinct parts of the soil profile. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 41: 256-271.<br />

Conant, R.T., Ryan, M.G., Agren, G.I., Birge, J.H.E., Davidson, E.A., Eliasson, P.E., Evans, S.E., Frey,<br />

S.D., Giardina, C.P., Hopkins, F.M., Hyvonen, R., Kirschbaum, M., Lavallee, J.M., Leifeld, J., Parton, W.J.,<br />

Steinweg, J.M., Wallenstein, M.D., Wetterstedt, J.A.M. & Bradford, M.A. 2011. Temperature and soil organic<br />

matter decomposition rates – synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Global Change Biology, 17:<br />

3392-3404.<br />

Cotrufo, M.F., Wallenstein, M.D., Boot, C., Denef, K. & Paul, E. 2013. The microbial efficiency-matrix<br />

stabilisation (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization:<br />

do labile plant inputs form stable organic matter? Global Change Biology, 19: 988-995.<br />

Decaëns, T., Jiménez, J.J., Gioia, C., Measey, G.J. & Lavelle, P. 2006. The values of soil animals for<br />

conservation biology. Eur. J. <strong>Soil</strong>. Biol., 60: 807–819.<br />

Dominati, E., Patterson, M. & Mackay, A. 2010. A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural<br />

capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecological Economics, 69: 1858 -1 868.<br />

Dungait, J.A.J., Hopkins, D.W., Gregory, A.S. &Whitmore, A.P. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter turnover is<br />

governed by accessibility not recalcitrance. Global Change Biology, 18: 1781 -1 796.<br />

Dymond, J. 2014. Ecosystem services in New Zealand. New Zealand, Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua<br />

Press. 540 pp.<br />

Elliott, E.T., Paustian, K. & Frey, S.D. 1996. Modeling the measurable or measuring the modelable: A<br />

hierarchical approach to isolating meaningful soil organic matter fractionations. In D.S. Powlson, P. Smith<br />

& J.U. Smith, eds. Evaluation of soil organic matter models using existing, long-term datasets. pp.161 -1 79. NATO ASI<br />

Series, Global Environmental Change. Vol. 38. Berlin, Springer Verlag.<br />

European Commission. 2015. Global <strong>Soil</strong> Biodiversity Atlas. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European<br />

Union. 176 pp.<br />

FAO. 2015. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Statistic Division (FAOSTAT) (also<br />

available at http://faostat 3.fao.org/home/E)<br />

Fierer, N. & Jackson, R.B. 2006. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. Proc. Natl.<br />

Acad. Sci. US, 103: 626-631.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

26


Fierer, N., Ladau, J., Clemente, J.C., Leff, J., Owens, S.M., Pollard, K.S., Knight, R., Gilbert, J.A. &<br />

McCulley, R.L. 2013. Reconstructing the microbial diversity and function of pre-agricultural tallgrass prairie<br />

soils in the United States. Science, 342: 621-624.<br />

Fontaine, S., Mariotti, A. & Abbadie, L. 2003. The priming effect of organic matter: a question of microbial<br />

competition. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology & Biochemistry, 35: 837-843.<br />

Furusaka, C. 1993. Global environment and microorganisms. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Microb. Ecol., 8(2): 127 -1 31.<br />

Galloway, J.N., Townsend, A.R., Erisman, J.W., Bekunda, M., Cai, Z., Freney, J.R., Martinelli, L.A.,<br />

Seitzinger, S.P. & Sutton, M.A. 2008. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and<br />

potential solutions. Science, 320: 889-892.<br />

Gans, J., Wolinsky, M. & Dunbar, J. 2005. Computational improvements reveal great bacterial diversity and<br />

high metal toxicity in soil. Science, 309: 1387 -1 390.<br />

Gärdenäs, A.I., Ågren, G.I., Bird, J.A., Clarholm, M., Hallin, S. Ineson, P., Kätterer, T., Knicker, H., Nilsson,<br />

S.I., Näsholm, T., Ogle, S., Paustian, K., Persson, T. & Stendahl, J. 2011. Knowledge gaps in soil carbon and<br />

nitrogen interactions - From molecular to global scale. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biogeochemistry, 43: 702-717.<br />

Global Change Biology. 2013. The microbial efficiency-matrix stabilisation (MEMS) framework integrates<br />

plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable organic<br />

matter? Volume 19: 988-995.<br />

Griffiths, R.I., Thomson, B.C., James, P., Bell, T., Bailey, M. & Whiteley, A.S. 2011. The bacterial<br />

biogeography of British soils. Environmental Microbiology, 13(6): 1642 -1 654.<br />

Janzen, H.H. 2006. The soil carbon dilemma: Shall we hoard it or use it? <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 38(3),<br />

419-424.<br />

Jenkinson, D.S., 1971. Studies on the decomposition of 14C-labelled organic matter in soil.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> science, 111: 64-70.<br />

Kalbitz, K. & Kaiser, K. 2012. Cycling downwards – dissolved organic matter in soils. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and<br />

Biochemistry, 52: 29-32.<br />

Kibblewhite, M.G., Ritz, K. & Swift M.J. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> health in agricultural systems. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc.,<br />

363: 685-701.<br />

Knicker, H., 2007. How does fire affect the nature and stability of soil organic nitrogen and carbon? A review.<br />

Biogeochemistry, 85: 91 -1 18.<br />

Krull, E.S., Baldock J.A. & Skjemstad J.O. 2003. Importance of mechanisms and processes of the<br />

stabilisation of soil organic matter for modelling carbon turnover. Funct. Plant Biol., 30: 207-222.<br />

Kuzyakov, Y. 2002. Review: factors affecting rhizosphere priming effects. Journal of Plant Nutrition & <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Science, 165: 382-396.<br />

Lal, R. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304:<br />

1623 -1 627.<br />

Lehmann, J., Kinyangi, J. & Solomon, D. 2007. Organic matter stabilization in soil microaggregates:<br />

implications from spatial heterogeneity of organic carbon contents and carbon forms.<br />

Biogeochemistry, 85: 45-57.<br />

Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Dathe, L., Wirick, S. & Jacobsen, C. 2008 Spatial complexity of<br />

soil organic matter forms at nanometre scales. Nature Geoscience, 1: 238-242.<br />

Lehmann, L., Abiven, S., Kleber, M. Pan, G., Singh, B.P., Sohi, S. & Zimmerman, A. 2015. Persistence of<br />

biochar in soil. In J. Lehmann & S. Joseph, eds. Biochar for Environmental Management – Science, technology<br />

and implementation., 2nd edition. pp. 235-283. Routledge. 944 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

27


Lugato, E., Berti, A. & Giardini, L. 2006. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon (SOC) dynamics with and without residue<br />

incorporation in relation to different nitrogen fertilisation rates. Geoderma, 135: 315-321.<br />

MacDonald, G. K., Bennett, E. M., Potter, P. A. & Ramankutty, N. 2011. Agronomic phosphorus imbalances<br />

across the world's croplands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(7):<br />

3086-3091.<br />

McDowell, R.W., Cox, N., Daughney, C.J., Wheeler, D. & Moreau, M. 2014. A national assessment of the<br />

potential linkage between soil, and surface and groundwater concentrations of phosphorus. Journal of the<br />

American Water <strong>Resources</strong> Association. In press.<br />

McGill, W.B. 1996. Review and classification of ten soil organic matter (SOM) models In D.S. Powlson, P.<br />

Smith and J.U. Smith, eds. Evaluation of soil organic matter models using existing, long-term datasets. pp. 111 -1 32.<br />

NATO ASI Series, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 38. Berlin Springer Verlag.<br />

Miltner, A., Bombach, P., Schmidt-Brücken, B. & Kästner, M. 2012. Som genesis: Microbial biomass as a<br />

significant source. Biogeochemistry, 111: 41-55.<br />

Mueller, C.W., Weber, P.K., Kilburn, M.R., Hoeschen, C., Kleber, M. & Pett-Ridge, J. 2013. Advances in<br />

the analysis of biogeochemical interfaces: NanoSIMS to investigate soil microenvironments. Advances in<br />

Agronomy, 121: 2-39.<br />

Nordt, L.C., Wilding, L.P. & Drees, L.R. 2000. Pedogenic carbonate transformations in leaching soil<br />

systems: Implications for the global C cycle. In R. Lal, J.M. Kimble, H. Eswaran, & B.A. Stewart, eds. Global<br />

Climate Change and Pedogenic Carbonates. pp. 43-64. USA, FL, Boca Raton, Lewis Publishers.<br />

Parton, W.J., Schimel, D.S., Cole, C.V. & Ojima, D.S. 1987. Analyses of factors controlling soil organic matter<br />

levels in great plain soils. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America Journal, 51: 1173 -1 179.<br />

Paul, E.A. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> microbiology, ecology and biochemistry. Academic press. 598 p.<br />

Paul, E.A., Follett, R.F., Leavitt, S.W., Halvorson, A., Peterson, G.A. & Lyon, D.J. 1997. Radiocarbon dating<br />

for determination of soil organic matter pool sizes and fluxes. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci.Soc. Amer.J. 61: 1058 -1 067.<br />

Paustian, K. 1994. Modelling soil biology and biogeochemical processes for sustainable agriculture research.<br />

In C. Pankhurst, B.M. Doube, V.V.S.R. Gupta & P.R. Grace, eds. Management of <strong>Soil</strong> Biota in Sustainable Farming<br />

Systems. pp. 182 -1 96. Melbourne, CSIRO Publ. 262 pp.<br />

Paustian, K., Cole, C.V., Sauerbeck, D. & Sampson, N. 1998. CO 2<br />

mitigation by agriculture: An overview.<br />

Climatic Change, 40: 135 -1 62.<br />

Radajewski, S., Ineson, P., Parekh N.R. & Murrell J.C. 2000. Stable-isotope probing as a tool in microbial<br />

ecology. Nature, 403: 646-649.<br />

Rasse, D.P., Rumpel, C. & Dignac, M.F. 2005 : Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific<br />

stabilisation. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 269: 341-356.<br />

Robinson, D.A., Fraser, I., Dominati, E.J., Davíðsdóttir, B., Jónsson, J.O.G., Jones, L. Jones, S.B., Tuller,<br />

M., Lebron, I., Bristow, K.L., Souza, D.M., Banwart, S. & Clothier, B.E. 2014. On the value of soil resources in<br />

the context of natural capital and ecosystem service delivery. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J. In press.<br />

Robinson, D.A., Hockley, N., Cooper, D.M., Emmett, B.A., Keith, A.M., Lebron, I., Reynolds, B., Tipping,<br />

E., Tye, A.M., Watts, C.W., Whalley, W.R., Black, H.I.J., Warren, G.P. & Robinson, J.S. 2013. Natural capital<br />

and ecosystem services, developing an appropriate soils framework as a basis for valuation. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and<br />

Biochemistry, 57: 1023 -1 033.<br />

Robinson, D.A., Lebron, I. & Vereecken, H. 2009. On the Definition of the Natural Capital of <strong>Soil</strong>s: A<br />

Framework for Description, Evaluation, and Monitoring. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73: 1904 -1 911.<br />

Rumpel, C. & Kögel-Knabner, I. 2011. Deep soil organic matter – a key but poorly understood component<br />

of terrestrial C cycle. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 338: 143 -1 58.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

28


Sato, T., Qadir, M., Yamamoto, S., Endo, T. & Zahoor, A. 2013. Global, regional, and country level need for<br />

data on wastewater generation, treatment, and use. Agric. Water Manage. 130: 1 -1 3.<br />

Scharpenseel, H.W., Becker-Heidmann, P., Neue, H.U. & Tsutsuki, K. 1989. Bomb-carbon, 14 C dating and<br />

13<br />

C measurements as tracers of organic matter dynamics as well as of morphogenetic and turbation processes.<br />

The Science of the Total Environment, 81/82: 99 -1 10.<br />

Schmidt, M.W.I. & Noack, A.G. 2000. Black carbon in soils and sediments: Analysis, distribution,<br />

implications, and current challenges. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 14: 777-793.<br />

Schmidt, M.W.I., Torn, M.S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I.A., Kleber, M., Kogel-<br />

Knaber, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D.A.C., Nannipieri, P., Rasse, D.P., Weiner, S. & Trumbore, S.E. 2011.<br />

Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature, 478: 49-56.<br />

Setälä, H., Bardgett, R. D., Birkhofer, K., Brady, M., Byrne, L., de Ruiter, P. C., de Vries, F. T., Gardi, C.,<br />

Hedlund, K., Hemerik, L., Hotes, S., Liiri, M., Mortimer, S. R., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Pouyat, R., Tsiafouli,<br />

M. & van der Putten, W. H. 2014. Urban and agricultural soils: conflicts and trade-offs in the optimization of<br />

ecosystem services. Urban Ecosyst, 17: 239–253.<br />

Six, J., Conant, R.T., Paul, E.A., & Paustian, K. 2002. Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter:<br />

Implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 241: 155 -1 76.<br />

Six, J., Elliott, E.T. & Paustian, K. 2000. <strong>Soil</strong> microaggregate turnover and microaggregate formation: a<br />

mechanism for C sequestration under no-tillage agriculture. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 32 (14): 2099-2103.<br />

Smith, J.U., Smith, P., Monaghan, R. & MacDonald, J. 2002. When is a measured soil organic matter<br />

fraction equivalent to a model pool? European Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 53: 405-416.<br />

Smith, P., Ashmore, M., Black, H., Burgess, P.J., Evans, C., Quine, T., Thomson, A.M., Hicks, K. & Orr,<br />

H. 2013. The role of ecosystems and their management in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality.<br />

Journal of Applied Ecology, 50: 812-829.<br />

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H.H., Kumar, P., McCarl ,B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F.,<br />

Rice, C., Scholes, R.J., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V., Schneider, U.,<br />

Towprayoon, S., Wattenbach, M. & Smith, J.U. 2007. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical<br />

Transactions of the Royal Society, B., 363: 789-813.<br />

Smith, P., Smith, J.U., Powlson, D.S., McGill, W.B., Arah, J.R.M., Chertov, O.G., Coleman, K., Franko, U.,<br />

Frolking, S., Jenkinson, D.S., Jensen, L.S., Kelly, R.H., Klein-Gunnewiek, H., Komarov, A.S., Li, C., Molina,<br />

J.A.E., Mueller, T., Parton, W.J., Thornley, J.H.M. & Whitmore, A.P., 1997. A comparison of the performance<br />

of nine soil organic matter models using datasets from seven long-term experiments. Geoderma 81: 153-225.<br />

Sollins, P., Homann, P. & Caldwell, B.A. 1996. Stabilization and destabilization of soil organic matter:<br />

mechanisms and controls. Geoderma, 74: 65 -1 05.<br />

Sparling, G.S., Cheschire, M.V. & Mundie, C.M. 1982. Effect of barley plants on the decomposition of<br />

14C-labelled soil organic matter. Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 33: 89 -1 00.<br />

Tarnocai, C., Canadell, J.G., Schuur, E.A.G., Kuhry, P., Mazhitova, G. & Zimov, S. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon<br />

pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 23, GB 2023.<br />

Thévenot, M., Dignac, M.-F. & Rumpel, C. 2010. Fate of lignins in soils: a review. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry,<br />

42: 1200 -1 211.<br />

Todd-Brown, K.E.O, Randerson, J.T., Post, W.M., Hoffman, F.M., Tarnocai, C., Schuur, E.A.G. & Allison,<br />

S.D. 2013. Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP 5 Earth system models and comparison<br />

with observations. Biogeosciences, 10: 1717 -1 736.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

29


Trumbore, S. 2009. Radiocarbon and soil carbon dynamics. Annual Review of Earth Plantary Sciences,<br />

37: 47-66.<br />

Van Groenigen, J.W., Velthof, G.L., Oenema, O., Van Groenigen, K.J. & Van Kessel, C. 2010. Towards an<br />

agronomic assessment of N 20 emissions: a case study for arable crops. Eur J <strong>Soil</strong> Sci, 61: 903-913.<br />

Venterea, R.T., Maharjan, B. & Dolan, M.S. 2011. Fertilizer Source and Tillage Effects on Yield-Scaled<br />

Nitrous Oxide Emissions in a Corn Cropping System. J. Environ. Qual., 40: 1521 -1 531.<br />

Vitousek, P. M. & Matson, P. A. 1993. In R. S. Oremland, ed. The Biogeochemistry of Global Change: Radiative<br />

Trace Gases. pp. 193-208. New York, Chapman and Hall.<br />

Vogel, C., Mueller, C.W., Hoschen, C., Buegger, F., Heister, K., Schulz, S., Schloter, M. & Kogel-Knabner,<br />

I. 2014. Submicron structures provide preferential spots for carbon and nitrogen sequestration in soils. Nature<br />

Communications, 5: 2947. 7 pp.<br />

von Lützow, M., Kögel-Knabner I., Ekschmitt K., Matzner E., Guggenberger G., Marschner B. & Flessa<br />

H. 2006. Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: Mechanisms and their relevance under different<br />

soil conditions – a review. European Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 57: 426-445.<br />

Wall, D.H., Bardgett, R.D., Behan-Pelletier, V., Herrick, J.E., Jones, T.H., Ritz, K., Six, J., Strong, D.R. &<br />

van der Putten, W.H. (eds.). 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> Ecology and Ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, UK. 424 pp.<br />

Walthall, C.L., Hatfield, J., Backlund, P., Lengnick. L., Marshall, E., Walsh, M., Adkins, S., Aillery, M.,<br />

Ainsworth, E.A., Ammann, C., Anderson, C.J., Bartomeus, I., Baumgard, L.H., Booker. F., Bradley, B,,<br />

Blumenthal, D.M., Bunce, J., Burkey, K., Dabney, S.M., Delgado, J.A., Dukes, J., Funk, A., Garrett, K., Glenn,<br />

M., Grantz, D.A., Goodrich, D., Hu, S., Izaurralde, R.C., Jones, R.A.C., Kim, S-H., Leaky, A.D.B., Lewers, K.,<br />

Mader, T.L., McClung, A., Morgan, J., Muth, D.J., Nearing, M., Oosterhuis, D.M., Ort, D., Parmesan, C.,<br />

Pettigrew, W.T., Polley, W., Rader, R., Rice, C., Rivington, M., Rosskopf, E., Salas, W.A., Sollenberger, L.E.,<br />

Srygley, R., Stöckle, C., Takle, E.S., Timlin, D., White, J.W., Winfree, R., Wright-Morton, L. & Ziska, L.H.<br />

2012. Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation. Washington, DC, USDA Technical<br />

Bulletin 1935. 186 pp.<br />

West, P.C., Gerber, J.S., Engstrom, P.M., Mueller, N.D., Brauman, K.A., Carlson, K.M., Cassidy, E.S.,<br />

Johnston, M., MacDonald, G.K., Ray, D.K. & Siebert, S. 2014. Leverage points for improving global food<br />

security and the environment. Science 345: 325-328<br />

Whitmore, A.P., Kirk, G.J.D. & Rawlins, B.G. 2014. Technologies for increasing carbon storage in soil to<br />

mitigate climate change. <strong>Soil</strong> use and Management, 31(S 1): 62-71.<br />

Wilkinson, M.T., Richards, P.J. & Humphreys, G.S. 2009. Breaking ground: Pedological, geological and<br />

ecological implications of soil biotrubation. Earth Science Reviews, 97: 257-272.<br />

Withers, P.J., van Dijk, K.C., Neset, T.S., Sesme, T., Oenema, O., Rubæk, G.H., Schoumans, O.F.,<br />

Smit, B., Pellerin, S. 2015. Stewardship to tackle global phosphorus inefficiency: the case of Europe. Ambio,<br />

44: 193-206.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The role of soils in ecosystem processes<br />

30


3 | Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

3.1 | The evolution of soil definitions<br />

The definition of soil has changed over time. Early definitions (Kraut, 1853; Ramann, 1919) emphasized the<br />

geological or substrate aspect of soil as the upper weathering mantle of the earth’s crust. At the end of the<br />

19th century, Vasiliy Dokuchaiev formulated the paradigm of soil as a natural body formed by the combined<br />

effect of five soil-forming factors (climate, organisms, parent material, time and relief). This formulation<br />

effectively made Dokuchaiev the founder of a new science – pedology. His ideas were translated into English<br />

and promulgated by Coffey (1912) and Marbut (1921). Jenny (1941) published the equation of soil forming factors<br />

as independent variables; S = f(cl, o, r, p, t…). Dudal, Nachtergaele and Purnell (2002) added a human factor of<br />

soil formation, implying that soil is not exclusively a natural body.<br />

For digital soil mapping, the soil forming factors were modified by McBratney, Mendonça-Santos and<br />

Minasny (2003) as Sc = f(s, c, o, r, p, a, n…) or Sa = f(s, c, o, r, p, a, n…) where Sc is soil classes, Sa is soil attributes,<br />

s is the soil or property at a point, and n is the spatial position. Grunwald, Thompson and Boettinger (2011)<br />

further expanded the factor model to the STEP-AWBH Model by including space and time to infer soil properties<br />

and their evolution in which the factors of human action, atmosphere, and water are added.<br />

Defined in the simplest terms, soil is the upper layer of the Earth’s crust transformed by weathering and<br />

physical/chemical and biological processes. It is composed of mineral particles, organic matter, water, air and<br />

living organisms organized in genetic soil horizons (ISO, 2013).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

31


3.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> definitions in different soil classification systems<br />

The World Reference Base for <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> (FAO, 2014) classifies as soil any material within 2 m of the<br />

Earth’s surface that is in contact with the atmosphere, but excluding living organisms, areas with continuous<br />

ice not covered by other material, and water bodies deeper than 2 m.<br />

In the United States <strong>Soil</strong> Taxonomy (<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff, 1999) soil is considered to be a natural body comprised<br />

of solids (minerals and organic matter), liquid, and gases that occurs on the land surface, occupies space,<br />

and is characterized by one or both of the following: (i) horizons or layers that are distinguishable from the<br />

initial material as a result of additions, losses, transfers, and transformations of energy and matter; and (ii) the<br />

ability to support rooted plants in a natural environment.<br />

In the Russian Classification System (Shishov et al., 2004), soil is defined as a solid-phase natural-historical<br />

body with a system of inter-related horizons composing a genetic profile and which derives from the<br />

transformation of the uppermost layer of the lithosphere by the integrity of soil-forming agents.<br />

French pedologists put emphasis on the spatial aspects of soil as an ‘objet naturel, continu et tridimensionnel’<br />

(a natural, continuous and three dimensional object) (AFES, 2008). A related variant considers that “soil in<br />

nature is a three-dimensional continuum, temporally dynamic and spatially anisotropic, both vertically and<br />

laterally” (Sposito and Reginato, 1992).<br />

Urban soils including those ‘sealed’ by concrete or asphalt, strata of composts or other fertile materials<br />

applied to construct lawns and gardens, superficial layers, mine spoil or garbage heaps are also considered in<br />

some soil classification systems (Rossiter, 2007). The concept of soils as natural bodies also includes very thin<br />

films in caves or fine earth patches within desquamation cracks of hard rocks as found in Antarctic endolithic<br />

soils (Goryachkin et al., 2012) and in underwater soils (Demas, 1993). Thus, the concept of soil becomes very<br />

broad. <strong>Soil</strong> scientists have even proposed to extrapolate it to other planets (Targulian et al., 2010).<br />

3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong>s, landscapes and pedodiversity<br />

The relationships between soils and landscapes were at the core of the ‘zonality’ concept developed by<br />

Dokuchaev and tested during his excursion to the Caucasus in 1898. He expressed the concept at the global<br />

scale in the form of many-coloured soil bands around the Earth. This zonal concept was also used in the United<br />

States 1938 classification of zonal, azonal, and intrazonal soils (Baldwin, Kellogg and Thorp, 1938). Along with<br />

zonal ideas, concepts of regularities in local soil patterns emerged. The earliest among these was the concept<br />

of soil series developed in the United States in 1903 (Simonson, 1952). The work of Neustuev (1931) on soil<br />

geography further developed the concept of regularities.<br />

Another set of spatial soil patterns related to topography was recognized by Milne (1935) and Bushnell<br />

(1945) who proposed the term ‘catena’ (chain) and applied it to soil sequences on the slopes of mountains.<br />

Different soil catenas in landscapes all over the world were subsequently described and attempts were made<br />

to inventory them systematically (Sommer and Schlichting, 1997).<br />

Fridland (1976) gave a new impulse to the theory of the ‘soil/landscape’ relationship by defining the types of<br />

soil systems related to landforms at different scales (‘soil associations’). The relationships between soils – their<br />

ingredients, taxonomic distances, geometric shape and kinds of boundaries - were described and for some of<br />

them mathematic formulas were proposed.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

32


Fridland’s was the first attempt to analyse and quantify the pedological diversity of a territory. The concept<br />

of soil diversity, or pedodiversity (Ibáñez, Jiménez-Ballesta and García-Álvarez, 1990; Ibáñez et al., 1995;<br />

McBratney, 1992), opened a new conceptual window in soil science (Ibañez and Bockheim, 2013; Toomanian<br />

and Esfandiarpoor, 2010). Approaches comprised the description and measurement of either the spatial<br />

distribution of soils, or their evolutionary stages by indicating rates of soil development. <strong>Soil</strong> development<br />

makes a contribution to the spatial heterogeneity of the soil because, together with other agents, soils with<br />

different evolutionary pathways participate in forming the soil cover and so contribute to the creation of<br />

specific soilscapes.<br />

The term ‘pedodiversity’ and many tools for studying pedodiversity were adapted from biology. Pedodiversity,<br />

for example, can be measured just as biodiversity is measured - by means of special indices showing the<br />

abundance of species and the taxonomic distances between them. A set of mathematical methods, both<br />

parametric and non-parametrical, can be applied to quantify soil spatial heterogeneity.<br />

The pedodiversity concept is an updated, quantification-oriented branch of soil geography. Its advantage<br />

is its compatibility with GIS and remote sensing technologies and its solid base in mathematics and statistics,<br />

which leads to a broad applicability in environmental sciences and biology.<br />

3.4 | Properties of the soil<br />

Because soils have physical, chemical, mineralogical, and biological characteristics, knowledge of the basic<br />

sciences of geology, chemistry, physics and biology contributes to understanding basic soil properties. The<br />

solid inorganic fraction defines the soil’s texture, the amount of sand, silt, and clay. Solid particles are arranged<br />

into aggregates to form diverse structures by biological, chemical and physical processes. Structure describes<br />

the size, organization, and shape of the soil aggregates. Consistence and strength are how the soil deforms<br />

under pressure. Texture and structure influence porosity and bulk density. Gases or solutions occupy the soil<br />

pores. <strong>Soil</strong> reaction (pH), redox status, carbon, nutrients, and cation exchange capacity are key chemical<br />

properties. Secondary clay minerals e.g. smectite, vermiculite, illite, influence the soil physical and chemical<br />

properties and are the primary source of ionic exchange. The abiotic, inorganic properties create a platform<br />

for the biotic soil component.<br />

Properties that are seen or felt are part of the soil morphology. <strong>Soil</strong> morphology is the object of study both<br />

in nature and in laboratories – micro morphology – with the help of microscopy and computer tomography.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> colour is influenced by the content and type of organic matter and specific minerals including oxides (e.g.<br />

Fe oxi-hydroxides), and redox conditions. Horizon and total soil thickness describe internal organization and<br />

root and moisture availability.<br />

3.5 | Global soil maps<br />

Local soil investigations started at the end of the 19th century in Russia (see 3.3. above), but only after World<br />

War II were efforts geared towards more systematic national soil inventories. The first regional maps were<br />

produced in the early 1960s for Europe (FAO/UNESCO, 1962) and for Africa (D’Hoore, 1964).<br />

The development of a global soil map was initiated by the International <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society in 1960 and<br />

implemented by FAO and UNESCO between 1971 and 1980, resulting in the FAO-UNESCO <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the<br />

World. 1<br />

1 A digital version of this map is downloadable at: http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/resources.get?id=14116&fname=DSMW.zip&access=private<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

33


This <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World was, from 1995 onwards, systematically updated under the <strong>Soil</strong> and Terrain<br />

Database (SOTER) program carried out by FAO, ISRIC and UNEP together with national soil survey services.<br />

This resulted in several regional updates, including for Latin America and the Caribbean, large parts of Africa,<br />

and Eastern and Central Europe. In parallel, other organizations, notably the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the<br />

European Commision (EC) and the USDA, undertook regional soil updates, while several countries completed<br />

national soil inventories and maps (China, Brazil, Botswana and Kenya etc.). This updated information was<br />

harmonized with the digitalized <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World and published by a consortium of FAO, IIASA, JRC,<br />

ISRIC and CAS in 2006 as the Harmonized World <strong>Soil</strong> Database (HWSD). Although not fully harmonized and<br />

consistent, the HWSD contains the most up-to-date and comprehensive soil information that is currently<br />

available. The latest version of this database, giving geo-referenced estimates of twenty soil characteristics,<br />

is available online. 2<br />

In 2006, work began on the design and planning for a soil grid of the world at fine resolution (100 m) and<br />

this became known as Global<strong>Soil</strong>Map. The intent was to integrate the best available data from local and<br />

national sources and deliver the information online. The format and resolution was to be compatible with<br />

other fundamental data sets on terrestrial systems (e.g. vegetation, land cover, terrain, remote sensing). The<br />

initial focus was Africa (Sanchez et al., 2009) and this led to the establishment of the African <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

System (AfSIS). 3 The technical and logistical complexity of the project has been substantial but good progress<br />

has been made during the initial research phase of the project and continental coverages are starting to be<br />

published. 4 A full summary is provided by Arrouays et al. (2014).<br />

Another, more recent initiative that arose from the Global<strong>Soil</strong>Map effort is <strong>Soil</strong> Grid 1km 5 which is a<br />

collection of updatable soil property and class maps of the world at a relatively coarse resolution of 1 km.<br />

These maps are being produced using state-of-the-art model-based statistical methods: 3D regression with<br />

splines for continuous soil properties and multinomial logistic regression for soil classes. <strong>Soil</strong>Grids 1km are<br />

outputs of a system for automated global soil mapping developed within the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Information Facilities<br />

framework. This system is intended to facilitate global soil data initiatives and to serve as a bridge between<br />

global and local soil mapping (Hengl et al., 2014).<br />

Information on the availability of global, regional and national soil maps has been summarized by Omuto,<br />

Nachtergaele and Vargas (2012). The plan for developing the global soil information system was endorsed by<br />

the Plenary Assembly of the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership in July 2014 and it is now being implemented. 6<br />

A simplified global soil map with the major soil groups is given in Figure A 35 (Annex).<br />

3.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> qualities essential for the provision of ecosystem services<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> functions depend on a number of physical, chemical and biological soil properties that in combination<br />

determine essential soil qualities. These qualities in turn guarantee that the soil can fulfil its ecological and<br />

productive services. <strong>Soil</strong>s differ considerably in terms of properties, qualities, limitations and potential.<br />

Significant changes may occur over very short distances, making environmental and soil monitoring difficult<br />

(Brammer and Nachtergaele, 2015).<br />

2 http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/it/<br />

3 http://www.africasoils.net<br />

4 http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/<br />

5 http://www.isric.org/content/soilgrids<br />

6 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/GSP/docs/plenary_assembly_II/pillar4.pdf<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

34


<strong>Soil</strong> management has a considerable effect on how the soil may fulfil its ecosystem services. Mineral<br />

and organic fertilizer may compensate for poor inherent nutrient conditions in a soil; drainage may remedy<br />

excessive wetness in soils, or leach salts when these are present; amendments (lime or gypsum) may correct<br />

very acid or highly sodic soils. However, these interventions always have a cost in terms of labour and inputs,<br />

and they may also have negative side effects, such as groundwater contamination.<br />

In this section a number of soil qualities essential for the provision of ecosystem services are discussed and<br />

related to the major soil groups summarized and illustrated in Annex A 35.<br />

3.6.1 | Inherent soil fertility<br />

The capability of a soil to provide sufficient nutrients to crops, grasses and trees is a major quality of soils<br />

that supports all provisioning services of the ecosystem. Sixteen nutrients are essential for plant growth and<br />

living organisms in the soil. These fall into two different categories: macronutrients and micronutrients.<br />

Macronutrients are the most important nutrients for plant development and relatively high quantities<br />

are required. Macronutrients include: carbon (C), oxygen (O), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P),<br />

potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sulphur (S). Micronutrients, on the other hand, are needed<br />

in smaller amounts, but are still crucial for plant development and growth. Micronutrients include iron<br />

(Fe), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), boron (B), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo) and chlorine (Cl). Nearly all plant<br />

nutrients are taken up in ionic forms from the soil solution as cations or as anions.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> properties directly related to the amount and availability of nutrients in the soil are: (i) soil texture<br />

(clayey soils contain more nutrients than sandy ones); (ii) the type of clay minerals present (smectitic clays<br />

absorb more ions than kaolinitic ones); (iii) the soil organic carbon content (more SOC corresponds with a<br />

larger amount of nutrients); and (iv) the cation exchange capacity that corresponds to the total of Ca, Mg,<br />

K, Na (basic ions) and Al and H (acidic ions) exchangeable with the soil solution. A large amount of available<br />

nutrients is present in Vertisols, Chernozems (Borolls), Kastanozems (Ustolls) and Phaeozems (Udolls). Also<br />

volcanic soils (Andosols) and alluvial soils (Fluvisols/Fluvents) generally have a large nutrient content. On<br />

the other hand, sandy soils (Arenosols/Psamments) and highly leached soils (Ferralsols/Oxisols and Acrisols/<br />

Ultisols) generally have a small nutrient content.<br />

The amount of nutrients that a soil can provide to plants within the growing season represents a limit to<br />

nutrient mining. Nutrient mining occurs when crops take out a high proportion of the nutrients available in<br />

the soil, leaving a nutrient imbalance that threatens the sustained provision of food and ecosystem services.<br />

These challenges are discussed in Section 6.8. Figure 3.1 illustrates an estimation of the nutrient availability in<br />

soils globally based on information contained in HWSD.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> depth to a hard or an impermeable layer is a vital factor that determines the capability of roots to take<br />

hold and determines the total volume of nutrients and water available to crops and vegetation. <strong>Soil</strong>s tend to<br />

be deeper when strong weathering conditions prevail over a long period and wherever the parent material is<br />

readily weathered. Typical soils include Ferralsols and Nitisols). Shallow soils often occur in mountainous areas<br />

(Leptosols) and in dry areas characterized by indurated layers of silica, calcium carbonate or gypsum (Durisols/<br />

Durids, Calcisols/Calcids and Gypsisols/Gypsids). Each plant type has its own ideal rooting conditions. Tubers<br />

are the most sensitive to soil depth and volume limitations (Fischer et al., 2008; Grossnickle, 2005; Unger<br />

and Kaspar, 1994; McSweeney and Jansen, 1984; Myers et al., 2007). Figure 3.2 illustrates global soil rooting<br />

conditions<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

35


No or slight constraints Moderate constrains Severe constraints Very severe constraints Mainly non-soil Permafrost area Water bodies<br />

Figure 3.1 Nutrient availability in soils. Source: Fischer et al., 2008.<br />

The soil pH is a measure of its hydrogen ion concentration and indicates the acidity or alkalinity of the<br />

soil. Optimum availability of nutrients occurs around pH=6.5. Toxic concentrations of H and Al occur when<br />

the pH drops below 5.5. Values of pH above 7.2 indicate an alkaline reaction and may be symptomatic for the<br />

immobilization of nutrients. Very high pH values over 8.5 result in the dispersion of the soil particles and a<br />

collapse of structure. High rainfall results in more acid soils (Ferralsols/Oxisols, Alisols, Plinthisols, Acrisols/<br />

Ultisols, Podzols/Spodosols), while drier conditions often lead to the accumulation of Gypsum (Gypsisols/<br />

Gyspsids) or other less soluble salts (Silicon and Calcium Carbonate) in Durisols/Durids and Calcisols/Calcids.<br />

The soil pH is also important to the characterization of soil threats to ecosystem services such as acidification<br />

(section 6.4) and sodification (Section 6.5). A global map of soil pH is given in Section 6.4.<br />

No or slight constraints Moderate constraints Severe constraints Very severe constraints Mainly non-soils Permafrost area Water bodies<br />

Figure 3.2 Global soil rooting conditions. Source: Fischer et al., 2008.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

36


Accumulation of water soluble salts: soils in relatively dry areas are often characterized by the accumulation<br />

of water-soluble salts (NaCl, Na 2<br />

SO 4<br />

, etc.) and of less water-soluble salts (CaCO 3<br />

, CaSO 4<br />

). These salts may<br />

form indurated layers that limit the soil depth available for roots. This accumulation is often a natural process<br />

resulting in soils such as Solonchaks/Salids, Calcisols/Calcids, Gypsisols/Gypsids, Durisols/Durids. In irrigation<br />

schemes, which are most commonly developed in dry areas, the problem may be human-induced and made<br />

worse by the use of saline irrigation water, by insufficient leaching/drainage, or by the conversion to irrigation<br />

of soils formed from marine sediments. Most salt-affected soils have moderate to severe limitations for crop<br />

production. Section 6.5 deals specifically with salinization and sodification problems.<br />

Toxic elements and other soil fertility problems: some toxic elements such as aluminium occur naturally<br />

in acid soils. The parent material may also be a natural source of undesirable elements (for instance cadmium)<br />

that may be a problem for human and animal health. Some soils have a high phosphorus adsorption ratio<br />

(Andosols and Nitisols/Kandi subgroups) that make P fertilization cumbersome. Atmospheric deposition of<br />

toxic elements may also contaminate soils as discussed in section 4.4.<br />

3.6.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> moisture qualities and limitations<br />

The moisture stored in or flowing through the soil affects soil formation, its structure and stability, and<br />

erosion run-off. <strong>Soil</strong> moisture is of primary concern with respect to plant growth. The depth of the groundwater<br />

table and the availability of oxygen in the soil also affect soil ecosystem functions. The physical properties of<br />

soils (texture, structure, porosity, drainage class, permeability) are of prime importance in this respect.<br />

The capacity to store water and moisture in a soil is largely determined by its texture, structure,<br />

organic carbon content and depth. <strong>Soil</strong> moisture provides a buffer for crops during dry periods and is a builtin<br />

safeguard against run-off and erosion. Ecological functions of this parameter are discussed in Chapter 7.<br />

High soil moisture capacities are typical for deep clayey soils, rich in organic matter and containing modest<br />

amounts of CaCO 3<br />

(Chernozems, Cambisols). The lowest soil moisture capacities are encountered in sandy<br />

soils (Arenosols) or very shallow soils (Leptosols). Very high soil moisture storage occurs in volcanic soils<br />

(Andosols) and in many peat soils (Histosols). Figure 3.3 illustrates the distribution of different soil moisture<br />

storage classes globally.<br />

Oxygen availability is a critical factor for plant growth. Inadequate oxygen supply to the roots leads to the<br />

formation of an underdeveloped root system which is not able to provide sufficient nutrients and water to<br />

the plant. Oxygen availability is basically defined by drainage characteristics of soils related to soil type, soil<br />

texture, soil phases and terrain slope, all of which play an important role in determining the proportion of gases<br />

and water into the soil. <strong>Soil</strong> phases define specific soil and terrain characteristics. Gleysols/Aquic suborders,<br />

Stagnosols and Plinthosols often suffer from temporary saturation with groundwater or rain water, resulting<br />

in poor oxygen availability for part of the year. Oxygen availability can be improved by farming practices (e.g.<br />

adapted tillage) and by farming inputs such as artificial drainage (Crawford, 1992; Erikson, 1982; Fischer et al.,<br />

2008).<br />

3.6.3 | <strong>Soil</strong>s properties and climate change<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s are both affected by and contribute to climate change. The carbon that is fixed by plants is transferred<br />

to the soil via dead plant matter including dead roots and leaves. This dead organic matter creates a substrate<br />

which soil micro-organisms respire back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide or methane depending on<br />

the availability of oxygen in the soil. Some of the carbon compounds are easily digested and respired by the<br />

microbes, resulting in a relatively short residence time. Others become chemically and/or physically stabilised<br />

in soils and have longer residence times (as described in Chapter 2). <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon can also be thermally<br />

decomposed during fire events and returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Remaining charred material<br />

can persist in soils for long periods (Lehmann et al., 2015).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

37


Average water capacity class (mm/m)<br />

> 150 100 - 150 50 - 100 < 50<br />

Figure 3.3 <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture storage capacity. Source: Van Engelen, 2012.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon improves the physical and chemical properties of the soil by increasing the cation<br />

exchange capacity and the water-holding capacity. It also contributes to the structural stability of soils by<br />

helping to bind particles into aggregates. <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter (SOM), of which carbon is a major part, holds<br />

a great proportion of nutrients, including trace elements, which are of importance to plant growth. SOM<br />

mitigates nutrient leaching and contributes to soil pH-buffering capacity. It is widely accepted that the<br />

organic matter content of the soil is a major factor contributing to soil functions, including that of organic C<br />

storage, which has important feedbacks with the Earth’s climate system (Chapter 2).<br />

A large organic carbon content is found in peat soils (Histosols/Histisols), in volcanic soils (Andosols/<br />

Andisols) and in steppe soils (Chernozem/Borolls, Kastanozems/Ustolls and Phaeozems/Udolls). Large<br />

organic carbon contents are not always indicative of fertile soils because carbon may also accumulate under<br />

wet and cold conditions as in Podzols/Spodosols and Cryosols/Gelisols, and in some hydromorphic soils such<br />

as Gleysols. Changes in SOC represent one of the major soil threats – see the discussion in section 6.2. The<br />

global distribution of soil organic carbon is given in Figure 3.4.<br />

Crysols/Gelisols are soils which are frozen for a large part of the year. In taiga areas they often occur<br />

together with Histosols. Global warming in these areas will have a significant effect by allowing agriculture<br />

to move more northwards. However, mineralization of organic carbon may be accelerated, with negative<br />

consequences for GHG release.<br />

3.6.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility and water erosion<br />

The susceptibility of a soil to water erosion is primarily determined by the erosive potential of the rainfall,<br />

the slope of the land surface and position of the soil in the catchment, and the vegetative cover on the soil<br />

surface. <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility refers to the susceptibility of soil to erosion by water and is an important secondary<br />

control on the intensity of water erosion. Most clay-rich soils (e.g. Vertisols with the exception of erodible<br />

self-mulching forms) have a high resilience because they are resistant to detachment. Coarse textured, sandy<br />

soils (e.g. Arenosols/Psamments) are also resilient because of low runoff even though these soils are easily<br />

detached. Medium textured soils, such as silt loam soils are only moderately resistant to erosion because<br />

they are moderately susceptible to detachment and they produce moderate runoff. <strong>Soil</strong>s having a high silt<br />

content are the most erodible of all soils. They are easily detached, tend to crust and produce high rates of<br />

runoff. Organic matter reduces erodibility because it reduces the susceptibility of the soil to detachment,<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

38


and increases infiltration, which reduces runoff and thus erosion. <strong>Soil</strong> structure affects both susceptibility to<br />

detachment and infiltration. Permeability of the soil profile affects erodibility because it affects runoff. Past<br />

management or misuse of a soil (e.g. by intensive cropping) can increase a soil’s erodibility, for example if the<br />

subsoil is exposed or if the organic matter has been depleted, or where the soil’s structure has been destroyed<br />

or soil compaction has reduced permeability. Section 6.1 discusses soil erosion by water in more detail. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

erodibility worldwide, as characterized by the k factor in the RUSLE equation, is represented in Figure 3.5.<br />

Prepared by R. Hiederer<br />

Figure 3.4 <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon pool (tonnes C ha -1 ).<br />

3.6.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> workability<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> workability refers to the ease of tillage, which depends on the soil’s interrelated characteristics of texture,<br />

structure, organic matter content, etc., on the soil’s gravel content, and on the presence of continuous hard<br />

rock at shallow depth. Depending on the soil characteristics, soil workability also varies with the soil moisture<br />

content. Some soils are easy to work regardless of the moisture content, but other soils – such as Vertisols<br />

- can be worked only at a specific moisture status. This is true especially for farming systems employing<br />

manual cultivation methods or using only light machinery. <strong>Soil</strong> workability is also related to the type of soil<br />

management adopted. While low and intermediate input farming systems mainly face constraints related to<br />

soil texture and soil structure, high-level input mechanized farming systems mainly face constraints related to<br />

irregular soil depth and stony and rocky soil conditions. Indeed, the use of heavy field equipment is not possible<br />

on stony soils or on soils characterized by irregular soil depth. This factor can prevent soil degradation, for<br />

example by compaction (Earl, 1997; Fischer et al., 2008; Müller et al., 2011; Rounsevell, 1993). Figure 3.6 shows<br />

the distribution of the constraints to soil management and food production due to soil workability worldwide.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

39


Undefined < 0.06<br />

0.06 - 0.12 0.12 - 0.18 0.18 - 0.24<br />

0.24 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.36 0.36 - 0.42 0.42 - 0.48 0.48 - 0.54<br />

<<br />

0.54<br />

Figure 3.5 <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility as characterized by the k factor. Source: Nachtergaele and Petri, 2011.<br />

3.6.6 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and ecosystem goods and services<br />

Figure 3.7 illustrates the suitability of soils for supporting crops. The evaluation is based on soil health but<br />

excludes climatic considerations (except for low temperatures). In Table 3.1, the contribution of the main soil<br />

types to major ecosystem services (food security, climate regulation, water regulation and socio-cultural<br />

provisions) is estimated at a scale from zero to five. The ratings are based on soil characteristics and quality as<br />

measured by: suitability for growing crops; organic carbon content; water holding capacity; and capacity to<br />

support infrastructure and store archaeological remains.<br />

No or slight constraints Moderate constraints Severe constraints Very severe constraints Mainly non-soils Permafrost areas Water bodies<br />

Figure 3.6 <strong>Soil</strong> workability derived from HWSD. Source: Fischer et al., 2008.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

40


Figure 3.7 <strong>Soil</strong> suitability for cropping at low input, based on the global agro-ecological zones study.<br />

Source: Fischer et al., 2008.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

41


Ecosystem Services<br />

Reference<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Groups<br />

Food Climate Water Cultural SUM Major Service<br />

Histosols 2 5 5 3 15 Climate Change<br />

Anthrosols 5 5 5 4 19 Food Security<br />

Technosols 1 3 2 4 10 Infrastructure<br />

Cryosols 0 5 2 3 10 Climate Change<br />

Leptosols 1 1 2 1 5 Water runoff<br />

Vertisols 4 2 3 1 10 Food Security<br />

Solonetz 1 1 1 1 4 Very few<br />

Solonchaks 1 1 1 1 4 Very few<br />

Podzols 1 3 1 1 6 Biomass<br />

Ferralsols 2 4 3 1 10 Biomass<br />

Nitisols 4 3 4 1 12 Food Security<br />

Plinthosols 2 1 2 1 6 Biomass<br />

Planosols 1 1 1 1 4 Very few<br />

Gleysols 2 1 3 1 7 Food Security<br />

Stagnosols 2 1 3 1 7 Water storage<br />

Andosols 4 3 5 1 13 Food Security<br />

Chernozems 5 4 4 1 14 Food Security<br />

Kastanozems 3 4 2 1 10 Food Security<br />

Phaeozems 4 4 3 1 12 Food Security<br />

Umbrisols 3 3 3 1 10 Water runoff<br />

Durisols 1 1 1 1 4 Very few<br />

Calcisols 1 1 2 1 5 Very few<br />

Gypsisols 1 1 1 1 4 Very few<br />

Retisols 2 1 2 1 6 Biomass<br />

Acrisols 2 1 2 1 6 Food Security<br />

Lixisols 2 1 2 1 6 Food Security<br />

Alisols 1 1 2 1 5 Biomass<br />

Luvisols 3 2 2 1 8 Food Security<br />

Cambisols 3 2 3 1 9 Food Security<br />

Regosols 2 1 1 1 5 Biomass<br />

Arenosols 1 1 1 1 4 Biomass<br />

Fluvisols 4 2 4 2 12 Food security<br />

Wassents 0 2 2 1 5 Very few<br />

Prepared by R. Hiederer, JRC<br />

Table 3.1: Generalized ecosystem service rating of specific soil groups (WRB) 7<br />

7 <strong>Soil</strong> Taxonomy equivalents given in the Annex, except for Wassents that are a suborder in <strong>Soil</strong> Taxonomy<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

42


3.7 | Global assessments of soil change - a history<br />

Global assessments of soil and land degradation started more than 40 years ago, but have until now not<br />

achieved a clear answer on where soil degradation takes place, what impact it has on the population, and<br />

what the cost to governments and land users would be if the decline in soil, water and vegetation resources<br />

continued unabated. Although institutional, socio-economic and biophysical causes of soil degradation have<br />

been identified locally in many case studies, these have seldom been inventoried systematically at national<br />

or regional level. Much of the investment in land reclamation and rehabilitation during recent years has been<br />

driven by donor interest to fund action, rather than research to understand the scope of the problem. Even<br />

knowledge about what works and what does not work in combating soil degradation is scanty, and there has<br />

been little systematic investigation. In recent years, however, the World Overview of Conservation Approaches<br />

and Technologies (WOCAT) consortium has begun to make a substantial contribution through its systematic<br />

collection of information on sustainable soil and water conservation practices and their impacts.<br />

The first comprehensive assessment of global soil degradation was based on expert opinion only. This<br />

was the GLobal Assessment of human-induced SOil Degradation - GLASOD, published by UNEP/ISRIC (Oldeman,<br />

Hakkeling and Sombroek, 1991). The Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands project (LADA) was launched by<br />

GEF, implemented by UNEP and executed by FAO between 2006 and 2011 in support of the UNCCD. LADA<br />

developed an approach based on remotely-sensed NDVI data (the Global Land Degradation Assessment – GLADA).<br />

The project also used an ecosystems approach that brought together and interpreted information from preexisting<br />

and newly developed global databases to inform decision makers on all aspects of land degradation<br />

at a global scale (GLADIS: the Global LAnd Degradation Information System).<br />

During this period other important and broader environmental assessments took place, notably the<br />

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) and the periodical review of the State of the Environment by UNEP<br />

with the GEO- reports (UNEP, 2012). FAO published a State of Land and Water (SOLAW) in 2011. The Economics of<br />

Land Degradation (ELD) initiative (ELD, 2015) provided in 2015 a first estimate of the cost of land degradation<br />

at global scale based on rather scattered and uncertain information. The annual economic losses due to<br />

deforestation and land degradation were estimated at EUR 1.5–3.4 trillion in 2008, equaling 3.3–7.5 percent of<br />

the global GDP in 2008. All of these studies used the results of one of the three global inventories: GLASOD,<br />

GLADA or GLADIS which are discussed in more detail below.<br />

3.7.1 | GLASOD: expert opinion<br />

An expert consultation on soil degradation convened by FAO and UNEP in Rome in 1974 recommended<br />

that a global assessment be made of actual and potential soil degradation. This assessment, which was<br />

conducted in collaboration with UNESCO, WMO and ISSS, was based on the compilation of existing data<br />

and the interpretation of environmental factors influencing the extent and intensity of soil degradation.<br />

The assessment considered such environmental factors as climate, vegetation, soil characteristics, soil<br />

management, topography and type of land utilization. The results of this assessment were compiled as a<br />

world map of soil degradation. During the next four years FAO, UNESCO and UNEP developed a provisional<br />

methodology for soil degradation assessment and prepared a first approximation study identifying areas<br />

of potential degradation hazard for soil erosion by wind and water, salinization and sodification. Maps<br />

at a scale of 1:5 M covering Africa north of the equator and the Middle East were prepared (FAO/UNEP/<br />

UNESCO, 1979). These first efforts were then scaled up into the Global Assessment of Human Induced <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Degradation Project or GLASOD. The project was initiated by UNEP. It had a duration of 28 months and<br />

was executed by ISRIC. In order to cover the whole world, 21 regions and individual countries were defined<br />

and experts on these regions were asked to prepare detailed maps of soil degradation. More than 250 soil<br />

scientists and environmentalists cooperated in this project (Oldeman, Hakkeling and Sombroek, 1991).<br />

The global results of the GLASOD project are available online. 8<br />

8 http://www.isric.org/UK/About+ISRIC/Projects/Track+Record/GLASOD.htm<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

43


A regional follow-up in Southeast Asia resulted in a more detailed database for that region: ASSOD (Van<br />

Lynden and Oldeman, 1997).<br />

Since its publication, some expert opinion has faulted GLASOD, questioning the objectivity and<br />

reproducibility of an assessment based on expert opinion as an assessment approach (Sonneveld and<br />

Dent, 2007). However, at the time GLASOD was developed there were few alternatives available, especially<br />

given the overall lack of remotely sensed data at the time. Even today the criticism seems unwarranted as<br />

remotely sensed techniques and most modelling approaches have so far failed to come up with more useful<br />

assessments. GLASOD results are presented in Figure 3.8.<br />

Figure 3.8 GLASOD results. Source: Oldeman, Hakkeling and Sombroek, 1991.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

44


3.7.2 | LADA-GLADIS: the ecosystem approach<br />

The first approaches of LADA (see 3.7 above) used remotely-sensed NDVI data to prepare the Global Land<br />

Degradation Assessment – GLADA (Bai et al., 2008). However, this was soon superseded by a complementary<br />

approach that focused on the actual status and trends of land resources in terms of six factors: biomass,<br />

water resources, soil health 9 , above-ground biodiversity, and economic and social provisions that contribute<br />

to ecosystem goods and services (Figure 3.9). The evaluation was based on interpretation of global databases<br />

available in the public domain, using documented algorithms to achieve a rating for each of the six factors<br />

in terms of status and trends. In order to map the various aspects, a special ‘global land use system’ was<br />

developed (Nachtergaele and Petri, 2011) which allowed cause and effect to be linked. Results were presented<br />

in radar diagrams (Figure 3.10) that showed the variability of ecosystem services provided as a function of land<br />

use and the need for trade-offs between different factors related to ecosystem goods and services. The GLADIS<br />

system is accessible on-line at:<br />

http://www.fao.org/nr/lada/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161&Itemid=113&lang=en<br />

An example of an output for global soil compaction is shown in Figure 3.10.<br />

Criticism of the GLADIS system focused on the unreliability of some of the global databases used and on<br />

questions about the downscaling relationships that were developed at local scale (such as the RUSLE). For<br />

the specific factor - soil health - the absence of an assessment of wind erosion is certainly a limitation, while<br />

the fact that no difference is made between ‘natural’ and ‘human induced’ soil erosion is also confusing. These<br />

weaknesses have been recognized and should be corrected where possible during the further development of<br />

the GLADIS information system which is pending.<br />

Forest<br />

Urban<br />

Biomass (Acc)<br />

Biomass (Acc)<br />

Soc./Cult. Benefit<br />

Biomass (Ann)<br />

Soc./Cult. Benefit<br />

Biomass (Ann)<br />

Economic benefit<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> health<br />

Economic benefit<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> health<br />

Biodiv.<br />

Water Q/Q<br />

Biodiv.<br />

Water Q/Q<br />

Agriculture<br />

Biomass (Acc)<br />

Soc./Cult. Benefit<br />

Biomass (Ann)<br />

Economic benefit<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> health<br />

Biodiv.<br />

Water Q/Q<br />

Figure 3.9 Example of the effect Figure of land 3.9: Example use on of indicative the effect of land factors use on for indicative ecosystem factors for goods ecosystem and goods services and services<br />

9 The soil health status was obtained by comparing the soil suitability for the actual land use. The soil health trend was based on a combination of ratings for the<br />

risk of erosion by water, the soil compaction risk, a nutrient balance, and the soil contamination and soil salinization risks.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

45


Ocean / Seas (0)<br />

Inland water<br />

Figure 3.10 <strong>Soil</strong> compaction risk derived from intensity of tractor use in crop land and from livestock density in grasslands. Source:<br />

Nachtergaele et al., 2011<br />

3.7.3 | Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

The present book – The Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> - takes a different approach from the ones<br />

described above by focusing on well documented and peer reviewed research data on soil degradation<br />

processes, status and trends in scientific literature at all levels. It also draws attention to the uncertainty of<br />

estimates made.<br />

The quantity and quality of information on soil degradation is shown to be very variable in different regions.<br />

Some regional statements - Africa, Eurasia, Near East, Latin America - still rely on GLASOD or ASSOD. For other<br />

regions, such as North America, no regional harmonized approach has been undertaken. Only the EU and the<br />

South West Pacific have made progress in establishing new regional updated approaches.<br />

The report also shows the great differences that exist in data and data availability on soil resources and<br />

soil change information at national level. Systematic sampling/surveying and monitoring does take place for<br />

selected major land uses (forests, arable lands) in most EU countries, the United States and Canada, China,<br />

Australia and New Zealand. However, results are not always made available in the public domain. The progress<br />

in digital soil mapping may help more countries to produce harmonized data and to make the information<br />

public.<br />

The data presented in this book constitute a baseline inventorying the documented knowledge at a point<br />

in time: 2015. Future progress can thus be measured against this baseline.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

46


References<br />

AFES. 2008. Réferentiel pédologique. France, Éditions Quæ Versailles.<br />

Arrouays, D., Grundy, M.G., Hartemink, A.E., Hempel, J.W., Heuvelink, G.B.M., Hong, S.Y., Lagacherie,<br />

P., Lelyk, G., McBratney, A.B., McKenzie, N.J., Mendonca-Santos, M.D.L., Minasny, B., Montanarella, L.,<br />

Odeh, I.O.A., Sanchez, P.A., Thompson, J.A. & Zhang, G.L. 2014. Global<strong>Soil</strong>Map: Toward a Fine-Resolution<br />

Global Grid of <strong>Soil</strong> Properties. Advances in Agronomy, 125: 93 -1 34.<br />

Bai, Z.G., Dent, D.L., Olsson, L. & Schaepman, M.E. 2008. Poxy global assessment of land degradation.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Use and Management, 24(3): 223–234.<br />

Baldwin, M., Kellogg, C.E. & Thorp, J. 1938. <strong>Soil</strong> Classification. In <strong>Soil</strong>s and Men: Yearbook of Agriculture 1938.<br />

pp. 979 -1 001. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office.<br />

Brammer, H. & Nachtergaele, F.O. 2015. Implications of soil complexity for environmental monitoring.<br />

International Journal of Environmental Studies, 72(1): 56-73.<br />

Bushnell, T.M. 1945. The catena cauldron. <strong>Soil</strong> Sc.Soc.Am. Proc., 10: 335-340.<br />

Coffey, G.N. 1912. A Study of the <strong>Soil</strong>s of the United States. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Bur., <strong>Soil</strong>s Bull. V 85. U.S.<br />

Washington, DC, Govt. Printing Office.<br />

Crawford, R.M.M. 1992. Oxygen availability as an ecological limit to plant distribution. In M. Begon & A.H<br />

Fitter, eds. Advances in ecological research. V 23. pp. 93 -1 71. Academic Press. 355 pp.<br />

D’Hoore, J.L. 1964. Carte des sols d’Áfrique. C.C.T.A. Service pédologique interafricain. Projet conjoint No<br />

11.C.C.T.A Publication No 93.<br />

Demas, G. P. 1993. Submerged soils: a new frontier in soil survey. <strong>Soil</strong> Survey Horizons, 34: 44-46.<br />

Dudal, R., Nachtergaele, F.O. & Purnell, M.F. 2002. The human factor of soil formation. Symposium 18.<br />

Vol. II. paper 93. Bangkok, Transactions 17 th World Congress of <strong>Soil</strong> Science.<br />

Earl, R. 1997. Prediction of trafficability and workability from soil moisture deficit. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research,<br />

40: 155-68.<br />

ELD. 2015. The value of land: Prosperous lands and positive rewards through sustainable land management (available<br />

at www.eld-initiative.org )<br />

Erickson, A.E. 1982. Tillage effects on soil aeration. Predicting tillage effects on soil physical properties and<br />

processes (special issue), 44: 91 -1 04.<br />

FAO. 2011. The State of the <strong>World’s</strong> Land and Water <strong>Resources</strong> for food and agriculture (SOLAW). Managing systems<br />

at risk. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome and London, Earthscan.<br />

FAO. 2014. World reference base for soil resources 2014. World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Report 106. Rome. 120 pp.<br />

FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC, 2009. Harmonized World <strong>Soil</strong> Database (version 1.1). Rome, FAO & Austria,<br />

Laxenburg, IIASA (available at http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonizedworld-soil-database-v<br />

12/it/ )<br />

FAO/UNEP/UNESCO. 1979. A Provisional Methodology for <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation Assessment. Rome, Food and<br />

Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.<br />

FAO/UNESCO. 1962. First draft of a unified soil map of Europe. In R. Dudal, ed. World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Report<br />

No 3. pp. 33-38. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.<br />

Fischer, G., Nachtergaele, F., Prieler, S., van Velthuizen, H.T., Verelst, L. & Wiberg, D. 2008. Global Agroecological<br />

Zones Assessment for Agriculture (GAEZ 2008). Laxenburg, Austria, IIASA & Rome, Food and Agriculture<br />

Organisation of the United Nations.<br />

Fridland, V.M. 1976. Pattern of the soil cover. Jerusalem. 291 pp. (First published in Russian in 1972).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

47


Goryachkin, S. Cherkinsky, A., Mergelov, N. & Shorkunov, I. 2012. Endolithic (bio)weathering and rock<br />

varnish in East Antarctica as early Earth analogs of ‘protosoils’. Mineralogical Magazine. 76(6): 1777.<br />

Grossnickle, S.C., 2005. Importance of root growth in overcoming planting stress. New forests, 30: 273-294.<br />

Grunwald, S., Thompson, J.A. & Boettinger, J.L. 2011. Digital soil mapping and modeling at continental<br />

scales – finding solutions for global issues. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J. (SSSA 75 th Anniversary Special Paper), 75(4): 1201-213.<br />

Hengl, T., de Jesus, J.M., MacMillan, R.A., Batjes, N.H., Heuvelink, G.B.M., Ribeiro, E., Samuel-Rosa,<br />

A., Kempen, B., Leenaars, J.G.B., Walsh, M.G. & Gonzalez, M.R. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong>Grids1km – Global <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

Based on Automated Mapping. PLoS ONE, 9(8): e 105992.<br />

Hiederer, R. & Köchy, M. 2011. Global soil organic carbon estimates and the harmonized world soil database.<br />

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Luxembourg,<br />

Publication Office of the European Union. 90 pp.<br />

Ibañez, J.J. & Bockheim, J. 2013. Pedodiversity. London-New York, CRC Press. 244 pp.<br />

Ibáñez, J.J., De-Alba, S., Bermúdez, F.F. & García-Álvarez. A. 1995. Pedodiversity: concepts and measures.<br />

Catena, 24: 215-232.<br />

Ibáñez, J.J., Jiménez-Ballesta, R. & García-Álvarez, A. 1990. <strong>Soil</strong> Landscapes and drainage basins in<br />

mediterranean mountain areas. Catena, 17: 573-583.<br />

ISO. 2013. Draft international standard ISO/DIS 11074. 9 pp.<br />

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of soil formation: a system of quantitative pedology. New York, Dover Publications.<br />

Kraut, H. 1853. Boring rocks for blasting. The Civil Engineer and Architect’s Journal, 20:1857<br />

Lehmann, L., Abiven, S., Kleber, M., Pan, G., Singh, B.P., Sohi, S. & Zimmerman, A. 2015. Persistence of<br />

biochar in soil. In J. Lehmann & S. Joseph, eds., Biochar for Environmental Management. Science and Technology,<br />

2nd edition.<br />

MA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends Findings of the Condition and Trends.<br />

Working Group Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Series Vol. 1. Island Press. 948 pp.<br />

Marbut, C.F. 1921. The contribution of soil surveys to soil science. Proceedings of the Society for the Promotion<br />

of Agricultural Science, 41: 116 -1 42.<br />

McBratney, A.B. 1992. On variation, uncertainty and informatics in environmental soil management.<br />

Australian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 30: 913–935.<br />

McBratney, A.B., Mendonça-Santos, M.L. & Minasny, B. 2003. On digital soil mapping.<br />

Geoderma, 1: 3-52.<br />

McSweenev, K. & Jansen, I.J. 1984. <strong>Soil</strong> structure and associated rooting behaviour in minesoils. <strong>Soil</strong> science<br />

society of America journal, 48: 607-612.<br />

Milne,G. 1935. Composite units for the mapping of complex soil associations. Transac. 3 rd Intern. Congr.<strong>Soil</strong><br />

Sci. Vol.I pp. 345-347.<br />

Müller, L., Lipiec, J., Kornecki, T.S. & Gebhardt, S. 2011. Trafficability and workability of soils. Encyclopedia<br />

of afrophysics, pp. 912-924.<br />

Myers, D.B., Kitchen, N.R., Sudduth, K.A., Sharp, R.E. & Miles, R.J. 2007. Soybean root distribution<br />

related to claypan soil properties and apparent soil electrical condusctivity. Crop science, 47: 1498 -1 509.<br />

Nachtergaele, F.O. & Petri, M. 2011. Mapping land use systems at global and regional scales for land degradation<br />

assessment analysis v 1.1. LADA. Rome, FAO.<br />

Nachtergaele, F.O., Petri, M., Biancalani, R., van Lynden, G., van Velthuizen, H. & Bloise, M. 2011. Global<br />

Land Degradation Information System (GLADIS v 1.0). LADA Technical Report #17. An information base for land<br />

degradation at global level. Rome, FAO.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

48


Neustuev, S.S. 1931. Elements of <strong>Soil</strong> Geography. Leningrad [in Russian].<br />

Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A. & Sombroek, W.G. 1991. World Map of the Status of Humaninduced <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Degradation (GLASOD): An Explanatory Note. Wageningen, International <strong>Soil</strong> Reference and Information Centre.<br />

Omuto, C., Nachtergaele, F. & Vargas, R. 2013. State of the Art Report on Global and Regional <strong>Soil</strong> Information:<br />

Where are we? Where to go? Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership. Technical Report no 1. Rome, Food and Agriculture<br />

Organization of the United Nations.<br />

Ramann, E. 1919. Der boden und sein geographischen Wert. Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft<br />

Milnchen, 13: 1 -1 4.<br />

Rossiter, D.G. 2007. Classification of urban and industrial soils in the world reference base for soil resources.<br />

Journal of soils and sediments, 7(2): 96 -1 00.<br />

Rounsevell, M.D.A. 1993. A review of soil workability models and their limitations in temperate regions.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> use and management, 9: 15-20.<br />

Sanchez, P.A., Ahamed, S., Carré, F., Hartemink, A.E., Hempel, J., Huising, J., Lagacherie, P., McBratney,<br />

A.B., McKenzie, N.J., Mendonça-Santos, M.L., Minasny, B., Montanarella, L., Okoth, P., Palm, C.A., Sachs,<br />

J.D., Shepherd, K.D., Vagen, T.G., Vanlauwe, B., Walsh, M.G., Winowiecki, L.A. & Zhang, G.L. 2009. Digital<br />

soil map of the world. Science, 325(5941): 690-81.<br />

Shishov, L., Tonkonogov, V., Lebedeva, I. & Gerasimova, M. 2004. Classification and diagnostics of soils of<br />

Russia. Smolensk, Oekumena. 341 pp. [in Russian].<br />

Simonson, R.W. 1952. Lessons from the first half century of soil survey: I. Classification of soils. <strong>Soil</strong> Science,<br />

74: 249–257.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff. 1999. <strong>Soil</strong> taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil<br />

surveys. 2nd Edition. Agric. Handbook 436. Washington, DC, Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Service, United<br />

States Department of Agriculture.<br />

Sommer, M. & Schlichting, E. 1997. Archetypes of catenas in respect to matter – a concept for structuring<br />

and grouping of catenas. Geoderma, 76(1): 1-33.<br />

Sonneveld, B.G. & Dent, D.L. 2009. How good is GLASOD? Journal of Environmental<br />

Management, 90(1): 274-283.<br />

Sposito, G. & Reginato R. 1992. Opportunities in Basic <strong>Soil</strong> Science Research. Wisconsin,<br />

Madison, SSSA. 109 pp.<br />

Targulian, V., Mergelov N., Gilichinsky, D., Sedov, S., Demidov N., Goryachkin, S. & Ivanov, A. 2010.<br />

Dokuchaev’s soil paradigm and extraterrestrial ‘soils’. In R.J. Gilkes & N. Prakongkep, eds. Proceedings of the 19th<br />

World Congress of <strong>Soil</strong> Science; <strong>Soil</strong> Solutions for a Changing World. pp. 1-4. Division Symposium. Astropedology.<br />

Australia, Brisbane, IUSS.<br />

Toomanian, N. & I. Esfandiarpoor. 2010. Challenges of pedodiversity in soil science. Eurasian <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Science, 43: 1486 -1 502.<br />

UNEP. 2012. GEO-5 Global Environmental Outlook. Nairobi, UNEP.<br />

Unger, P.W. & Kaspar, T.C. 1994. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction and root growth: a review. Agronomy Journal, 86: 759-766.<br />

Van Engelen, V. 2012. e-SOTER as a contribution to a Global <strong>Soil</strong> Observing System. In ‘Towards Global <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Observation: activities within the GEO Task Global <strong>Soil</strong> Data’. Workshop Report, GSP, Rome, Food and Agriculture<br />

Organization of the United Nations.<br />

Van Lynden, G.W.J. & Oldeman, L.R. 1997. The assessment of the status of human-induced soil degradation in<br />

south and south-east Asia (ASSOD). Wageningen, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Food and<br />

Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International <strong>Soil</strong> Reference and Information Centre<br />

(ISRIC).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

49


4 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

4.1 | Current land cover and land use<br />

The new Global Land Cover Share database (Latham et al., 2014) includes eleven global land cover layers,<br />

each representing the major land cover classes defined by the FAO and SEEA legend (Weber, 2010).<br />

Analysis of the database indicates that of the global land mass, artificial surfaces occupy 0.6 percent,<br />

croplands 12.6 percent, grasslands 13.0 percent, tree-covered areas 27.7 percent, shrub-covered areas 9.5<br />

percent, herbaceous vegetation 1.3 percent, mangroves 0.1 percent, sparse vegetation 7.7 percent, bare soils<br />

15.2 percent, snow and glaciers 9.7 percent and inland water bodies 2.6 percent.<br />

The intensity of each land-cover type varies substantially across the globe according to numerous factors,<br />

including soils, altitude, climatic conditions and anthropogenic influences. For example, while cultivated land<br />

is less than 10 percent in most African regions, it accounts for more than 25 percent of the land in the Asia<br />

region. A land cover map is given in Figure 4.1. Summary statistics by region, derived from the respective GIS<br />

layers are given in Figure 4.2. In the following discussion, attention is focused on three main land cover classes:<br />

cropland, grasslands/grazing lands and forests. The management of these three classes has large impacts on<br />

soils and ecosystem services. The presence of artificial surfaces is treated in more detail in Section 6.7. More<br />

than 25 percent of the land mass carries almost no vegetation because of climatic factors (glaciers, deserts) or<br />

topographic or soil conditions.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

50


75% crops Mixed >50% artificial 50-75% grass/shrub 50-75% forest 50-75% crops > 50% non vegetated >75% grass/shrub >75% forest<br />

Water<br />

Figure 4.1 Global Land Cover. Source: Latham et al., 2014.<br />

Figure 4.2 Distribution of land cover in different regions. Source: Latham et al., 2014.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

51


Cropland<br />

SOLAW (FAO, 2011) established that the cultivated land area in terms of per capita use in 2000 was highest<br />

in Australia (more than 2.2 ha per person), followed by North America and Eastern Europe and Russia (about<br />

0.7 ha per person). In contrast, current cultivated land used per capita is only 0.2 ha in Western Europe and in<br />

most less developed countries.<br />

By dividing the current cultivated land by the projected populations, the anticipated cultivated land area<br />

per capita in 2050 can be estimated. In the more developed countries, the cultivated area per capita would<br />

change little. In less developed countries, the cultivated area per capita is expected to halve to 0.1 ha by 2050,<br />

unless there is further expansion of the cultivated area.<br />

Further characterization of cropland and land use at a global scale by remote sensing is difficult because:<br />

1. The spatial extent of croplands is highly variable between and within nations. Cropland characteristics<br />

such as field size can be highly variable, even for the same crop type. Spatial extent of cropland depends<br />

on a host of factors, including the historical, political, social and technological context of agricultural<br />

development as well as natural factors such as landscape patterns.<br />

2. Patterns of agricultural intensification – for example, the use of fertilizer – vary greatly, especially<br />

between developed and developing nations.<br />

3. Each crop type has a specific growth phenology and structure, with significant seasonal variation<br />

between and even within individual crop types.<br />

4. Cropland can be confused with natural vegetation cover types – for example, surveys may confuse<br />

cereal grains with tall-grass prairie (Pittman et al., 2010). Better cropland information – in terms of<br />

both its extent and the purpose and intensity of its use – is vital to understanding soil change and<br />

to formulating adequate responses. Special attention should be paid to irrigated agriculture in<br />

developing countries, which covers about one-fifth of all arable land, and accounts for 47 percent of all<br />

crop production and almost 60 percent of cereal production (Nachtergaele et al., 2011).<br />

Grazing lands<br />

Grazing lands, including sown pasture and rangeland with various coverage (grasslands, bush/shrublands),<br />

are among the largest ecosystems in the world and contribute to the livelihoods of more than 800 million<br />

people. They are a source of goods and services such as food and forage, energy and wildlife habitat, and also<br />

provide carbon and water storage and watershed protection for many major river systems. Grasslands are<br />

also important for in situ conservation of genetic resources. Of a total of 10 000 species, only 100 to 150<br />

forage species have been cultivated, but many more hold potential for sustainable agriculture. Estimates of<br />

the proportion of the Earth's land area covered by grasslands vary between 20 and 40 percent, depending on<br />

the definition. Those differences are due to a lack of harmonization in the definition of grasslands.<br />

There has been a significant reduction of pasture in Eastern Africa, partially because large grassland areas<br />

have been destroyed or converted to agricultural land. In South America, pastures have been lost because<br />

of conversion to soybean cultivation. In Europe there has been a gain in grazing lands because European<br />

policies such as the ‘set-aside’ measures oblige farmers to leave a portion of their agricultural land in fallow as<br />

a condition for benefiting from direct payments (Suttie, Reynolds and Batello, 2005).<br />

Forests<br />

In 2010, forests covered about 28 percent of the world’s total land area. Deforestation affected an estimated<br />

13 million ha per year between 2000 and 2010. Net forest loss was, however, considerably less – 5.2 million<br />

ha per year – as losses were compensated by afforestation and some natural expansion (FAO, 2014a). Most<br />

deforestation takes place in tropical countries, whereas most developed countries with temperate and<br />

boreal forest ecosystems – and more recently, countries in the Near East and Asia – are experiencing stable<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

52


or increasing forest areas. Between 1990 and 2010, the amount of forest land designated primarily for the<br />

conservation of biological diversity increased by 35 percent, indicating a political commitment to conserve<br />

forests. These forests now account for 12 percent of the world’s forests.<br />

Approximately 13.2 million people worldwide are formally employed in the forestry sector. Many more<br />

depend directly on forests and forest products for their living. In developing countries, wood-based fuels are<br />

the dominant source of energy for more than two billion mostly poor people. In Africa, over 90 percent of<br />

harvested wood is used for energy. Wood accounts for 27 percent of total primary energy supply in Africa,<br />

13 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean and five percent in Asia and Oceania. However, it is also<br />

increasingly used in developed countries with the aim of reducing dependence on fossil fuels. For example,<br />

about 90 million people in Europe and North America now use wood energy as the main source of domestic<br />

heating (FAO, 2014a).<br />

Conclusion<br />

Land cover and land use are essential factors to understand soil change. In particular, better cropland<br />

information, in terms of extent, purpose and intensity of use, is vital to understanding soil change and to<br />

formulating adequate responses.<br />

4.2 | Historical land cover and land use change<br />

Since the early days of agriculture, human activity has altered vegetation cover and soil properties. ‘Land<br />

use change’ or ‘land cover change’ typically refers to changing from one type of vegetation cover to another<br />

(e.g forest to pasture, natural grassland to cropland). Although the terms land use change and land cover<br />

change are often used interchangeably, ‘land use’ is more typically used to refer to management within a land<br />

cover type. Land use is thus “characterised by the arrangements, activities and inputs people undertake in<br />

a certain land cover type to produce, change or maintain it" (FAO/UNEP, 1999). Land use change has been<br />

accelerated by migration and population increase as food, shelter, and materials are sought and acquired. It<br />

is estimated that humans have directly modified at least 70 million km 2 , or >50 percent of Earth’s ice-free land<br />

area (Hooke, Martín-Duque and Pedraza, 2012).<br />

For a long period of human activity, until about a thousand years ago, cropland and pasture occupied less<br />

than one to two percent each of the global ice-free land area (based on a range of data sources in Klein Goldewijk<br />

et al., 2011 and depicted in Figure 4.3; also see Ramankutty, Foley and Olejniczak, 2002). Subsequently, as the<br />

population centres of Europe, South Central Asia and Eastern Asia expanded, more land was converted from<br />

natural vegegation to cultivated lands. Cover of croplands and pastures was about two to four percent each<br />

by 1700 (Klein Goldewijk et al., 2011). By 1900, agriculture had further expanded in these areas, and spread to<br />

North America. Since 1900 rapid expansion has continued, including the arable areas of South America, Africa<br />

and Australia. As a result, today nearly all soils and climates suitable for cultivation in industralized countries<br />

are in use for crop production. In some of these countries, cropland expansion has been reversed in recent<br />

years, as with the EU set-aside programme. South America and Africa continue to convert land use to crop<br />

production. By 2000, global cropland cover had reached 11 percent and pasture cover 24 percent, according to<br />

Klein Goldewijk et al. (2011) based on FAO statistics.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

53


Prepared by P. Reich<br />

Figure 4.3 Historical land use change 1000 – 2005. Source: Klein Goldewijk et al., 2011.<br />

The net loss of natural land has been dominated by loss of tropical forests (3.3 million km 2 ), tropical<br />

grasslands (6.8 million km 2 ) and temperate grasslands (5.5 million km 2 ). Quantification from satellite imagery<br />

of global forest change over the period 2000-2012 shows that tropical deforestation remains the predominant<br />

source of losses (Hansen et al., 2013). However, there has been a reduced rate of deforestation in some regions<br />

over the last decade, most notably in Brazil. This is coupled with a rising rate of afforestation in some areas in<br />

recent decades, notably in Europe and the United States, and more recently in China, Vietnam and India (FAO,<br />

2013).<br />

4.3 | Interactions between soils, land use and management<br />

Many soils are subject to some degree of direct or indirect human disturbance. However, distinguishing<br />

natural from direct and indirect human influence is not always straightforward (Smith, 2005). Nonetheless,<br />

some human activities have clear direct impacts. These include land use change, land management, land<br />

degradation, soil sealing, and mining. The intensity of land use also has a great impact on soils. <strong>Soil</strong>s are also<br />

subject to indirect impacts arising from human activity, such as acid deposition (for example, sulphur and<br />

nitrogen) and heavy metal pollution. In this section, we report the state-of-the-art understanding and the<br />

knowledge gaps concerning these impacts on soils.<br />

4.3.1 | Land use change and soil degradation<br />

Land cover change (Section 4.2), for example from forest or natural grassland to pasture or cropland,<br />

removes biomass and disturbs soils. This in turn leads to loss of soil carbon and other nutrients and to changes<br />

in soil properties and in soil biodiversity. Some land cover conversions – for example, afforestation after<br />

abandonment of cropland – can result in increases of soil carbon and nutrients. Land use that does not result<br />

in a change of cover, such as forest harvest and regrowth, or increasing grazing intensity, can nonetheless<br />

result in degradation of soil properties.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

54


Degrading land covers approximately 24 percent of the global land area (35 million km 2 ). 23 percent of<br />

degrading land is broadleaved forest, 19 percent needle-leaved forests, 20–25 percent rangeland (Bai et al.,<br />

2008). The scale and nature of the changes are highly variable with type of land cover change, climate, and<br />

method of vegetation removal (e.g. land clearing fires, mechanical harvest). This section focuses on metaanalyses<br />

of field data and global model results. The effects of land use changes within agricultural lands are<br />

dealt with in Section 4.3.2.<br />

Impacts of land cover change<br />

Wei et al. (2014) collated observations from 119 publications of 453 paired or chrono-sequential sites in 36<br />

countries where tropical, temperate, and boreal forests were converted to agricultural land. The SOC stocks<br />

were corrected for changes in soil bulk density after land-use change and only SOC in the upper 0–30 cm was<br />

considered. The SOC stocks decreased at 98 percent of the sites by an average of 52 percent in temperate<br />

regions 41 percent in tropical regions and 31 percent in boreal regions. The decrease in SOC stocks and the<br />

turnover rate constants both varied significantly according to forest type, cultivation stage, climate and<br />

soil factors. A meta-analysis (Guo and Gifford, 2002) of 74 publications across tropical and temperate zones<br />

showed a decline in soil C stocks after conversion from pasture to plantation (−10 percent), native forest to<br />

plantation (−13 percent), native forest to crop (−42 percent), and pasture to crop (−59 percent). <strong>Soil</strong> C stocks<br />

increased after conversions from native forest to pasture (+8 percent), crop to pasture (+19 percent), crop to<br />

plantation (+18 percent), and crop to secondary forest (+53 percent). Broadleaf tree plantations placed onto<br />

prior native forest or pastures did not affect soil C stocks whereas pine plantations reduced soil C stocks by – 12<br />

to – 15 percent. In this study, soil depth varied from less than 30 cm to more than 100 cm and was not adjusted<br />

to account for changes in bulk density with land use change.<br />

In a meta-analysis of 385 studies on land use changes in the tropics (Don, Schumacher and Freibauer, 2011),<br />

SOC decreased when primary forest was converted to cropland (-25 percent), perennial crops (-30 percent)<br />

and grassland ( -1 2 percent). SOC increased when cropland was afforested (+29 percent) or under cropland<br />

fallow (+32 percent) or converted to grassland (+26 percent). Secondary forests stored 9 percent less SOC than<br />

primary forests. Relative changes were equally high in the subsoil as in the surface soil (Don, Schumacher and<br />

Freibauer, 2011). In this study, SOC stocks were corrected to an equivalent soil mass and sampling depth was<br />

on average 32 cm.<br />

The response of soil organic carbon (SOC) to afforestation in deep soil layers is still poorly understood. Shi<br />

et al. (2013) compiled information on changes in deep SOC (defined as at least 10 cm deeper than the 0–10<br />

cm layer) after afforestation of croplands and grasslands (total 63 sites from 56 literature). The responses of<br />

SOC to afforestation were slightly negative for grassland, and significantly positive for cropland. The SOC in<br />

soil depth layers (up to 80 cm) was reduced after afforestation of grassland but not significantly. By contrast,<br />

conversion of cropland to forests (trees or shrubs) increased SOC significantly for each soil layer up to 60 cm<br />

depth.<br />

Poeplau et al. (2011) compiled 95 studies conducted on conversion in temperate climates. One finding<br />

was that topsoil (0-30 cm) SOC decreases quickly (~20 years) when cropland is established on grassland (-32<br />

percent) or forest (-36 percent). By contrast, long lasting (> 120 years) sinks are created through conversion<br />

of cropland to forest (+16 percent) or grassland (+28 percent). Afforestation of grassland did not result in<br />

significant long term SOC stock trends in mineral soils, but did cause a net carbon accumulation in the labile<br />

forest floor (e.g. 38 Mg ha -1 over 100 years). However, this carbon accumulation cannot be considered as an<br />

intermediate or long-term C storage since it may be lost easily after disruptions such as fire, windthrow or<br />

clear cut (Poeplau et al., 2011).<br />

Peatlands (organic soils) store a large amount of carbon which is rapidly lost when these peatlands are<br />

drained for agriculture and commercial forestry (Hooijer et al., 2010). A rapid increase in decomposition<br />

rates leads to increased emissions of CO 2<br />

, and N 2<br />

O, and vulnerability to further impacts through fire.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

55


The FAO emissions database estimates globally there are 250 000 km 2 of drained organic soils under cropland<br />

and grassland, with total GHG emissions of 0.9 Gt CO2eq yr -1 in 2010. The largest contributions are from Asia<br />

(0.44 Gt CO2eq yr -1 ) and Europe (0.18 Gt CO2eq yr -1 ; FAO, 2013). Joosten (2010) estimated that there are<br />

>500 000 km 2 of drained peatlands in the world including under forests, with CO 2<br />

emissions having increased<br />

from 1.06 Gt CO 2<br />

yr -1 in 1990 to 1.30 Gt CO 2<br />

yr -1 in 2008. This is despite a decreasing trend in Annex I countries,<br />

from 0.65 to 0.49 Gt CO 2<br />

yr -1 , primarily due to natural and artificial rewetting of peatlands. In Southeast Asia,<br />

CO 2<br />

emissions from drained peatlands in 2006 were 0.61 ± 0.25 Gt CO 2<br />

yr -1 (Hooijer et al., 2010).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> drainage also affects mineral soils. Meersmans et al. (2009) showed that initially poorly drained<br />

valley soils in Belgium have lost significant amount of topsoil SOC (e.g. between – 2 and – 4 kg C m -2 for the<br />

1960-2006 period). The cause is most probably intensified soil drainage in these environment for cultivation<br />

purposes.<br />

A serious consequence of deforestation is extensive loss of carbon from the soil, a process regulated by<br />

microbial diversity. Crowther et al. (2014) assessed the effects of deforestation on soil microbial communities<br />

across multiple biomes, drawing on data from eleven regions ranging from Hawaii to Northern Alaska. The<br />

magnitude of the vegetation effect varied between sites. Deforestation dramatically altered the microbial<br />

communities in sandy soils, while the effects were minimal in clay-rich soils, even after extensive tree<br />

removal. Fine soil particles have a larger surface area to bind nutrients and water. This capacity might buffer<br />

soil microbes in clay-rich soils against the disturbance of deforestation. Sandy soils, by contrast, have larger<br />

particles with less surface area and so retain fewer nutrients and less organic matter. Microbial community<br />

changes were associated with distinct changes in the microbial catabolic profile.<br />

Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) can be used to look at the combined effects of land use<br />

change, climate, CO 2<br />

, and in some cases N deposition, on vegetation and soil properties over time. In Table<br />

4.1, Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 we show results from three vegetation models: ISAM (Jain et al., 2013; El-Masri et<br />

al., 2013; Barman et al., 2014 a, b), LPJ-GUESS (Smith et al., 2001; Pugh et al., 2015) and LPJmL (Bondeau et al.,<br />

2007; Schaphoff et al., 2013). The ISAM model includes a nitrogen cycle, N deposition and changes in soil N.<br />

The ISAM and LPJ-GUESS models were run with the HYDE historical land use change data set (History Database<br />

of the Global Environment, Klein Goldewijk et al., 2011). The LPJmL group combined three land use change data<br />

sets (Klein Goldewijk and Drecht, 2006; Ramankutty et al., 2008; Portmann, Siebert and Döll, 2010) with the<br />

global geographic distribution of agricultural lands in the year 2000 (Fader et al., 2010). The models were also<br />

run with historical climate and CO 2<br />

(and N deposition in the case of ISAM). Figure 4.4 shows the mineral soil C<br />

and N concentration of different land cover types in different geographic ranges while Table 4.1 and Figure 4.5<br />

show the loss of carbon due to historical land use change from 1860 to 2010.<br />

Differences between the models are large for some systems and regions due to different landuse change<br />

data, different land cover definitions, different processes included in the models, etc. For example, soil carbon<br />

losses are higher in the LPJmL model in part due to greater land cover change in their land cover reconstructions.<br />

The highest carbon losses are associated with the conversion of forests to croplands (Figures 4.4 and 4.5).<br />

While Table 4.1 shows the global mean soil carbon loss, the effects are not the same everywhere (Figure 4.5).<br />

This may be the case, for example, when forests are converted to pastures in regions where pastures strongly<br />

favour soil C accumulation.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

56


70 <br />

60 <br />

(A) soil carbon <br />

50 <br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Carbon (kg/m2) <br />

40 <br />

30 <br />

20 <br />

10 <br />

0 <br />

All "natural" <br />

forest <br />

grassland <br />

shrubland <br />

crop <br />

pasture <br />

All "natural" <br />

forest <br />

grassland <br />

shrubland <br />

crop <br />

pasture <br />

All "natural" <br />

forest <br />

grassland <br />

shrubland <br />

crop <br />

pasture <br />

ISAM <br />

LPJml <br />

LPJ_GUESS <br />

Tropics Temperate Boreal <br />

70 <br />

60 <br />

(A) soil carbon <br />

50 <br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Carbon (kg/m2) <br />

40 <br />

30 <br />

20 <br />

10 <br />

0 <br />

All "natural" <br />

forest <br />

grassland <br />

shrubland <br />

crop <br />

pasture <br />

All "natural" <br />

forest <br />

grassland <br />

shrubland <br />

crop <br />

pasture <br />

All "natural" <br />

forest <br />

grassland <br />

shrubland <br />

crop <br />

pasture <br />

ISAM <br />

LPJml <br />

LPJ_GUESS <br />

Tropics Temperate Boreal <br />

Figure 4.4 <strong>Soil</strong> carbon and nitrogen under different land cover types. Source: Smith et al. (in press).<br />

Panel (a) shows mean soil carbon stocks; Panel (b) shows mean soil nitrogen stocks. Based on three<br />

vegetation models ISAM (Jain et al., 2013; El-Masri et al., 2013; Barman, Jain and Liang, 2014 a, b), LPJ-GUESS<br />

(Smith et al., 2001; Pugh et al., 2014); and LPJmL (Bondeau et al., 2007; Schaphoff et al., 2013). The soil carbon<br />

and soil nitrogen are the average over the period 2001 to 2010 (2003 for LPJmL) in model simulations with<br />

historical land-use change, climate, and CO 2<br />

(and N 2<br />

for the ISAM model). All ‘natural’ land is the mean of all<br />

lands without pasture or crop land cover. It includes ‘un-managed’ forest, grassland and shrubland categories<br />

and may include other land cover types depending on the models e.g. bare soil.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

57


Figure 4.5 Maps of change in soil carbon due to<br />

land use change and land management from<br />

1860 to 2010 from three vegetation models.<br />

Pink indicates loss of soil carbon, blue indicates<br />

carbon gain. The models were run with historical<br />

land use change. This was compared to a<br />

model run with only natural vegetation cover<br />

to diagnose the difference in soil carbon due to<br />

land cover change. Both model runs included<br />

historical climate and CO 2<br />

change. Source: Smith<br />

et al. (in press).<br />

Panel (a) of Figure 4.5 shows cropland and pasture coverage in 2003. The model was run with historical land<br />

use change. This was compared to a model run with only natural vegetation cover to diagnose the difference<br />

in soil carbon due to land cover change up to year 2003 as shown in Panel (b). Both model runs included<br />

historical climate and CO 2<br />

change. Pink indicates loss of carbon due to land use, blue indicates areas of carbon<br />

gain.<br />

Model Tropical Temperate Boreal Global<br />

LPJ-GUESS 12.63 15.01 0.37 29.85<br />

LPJmL 34.86 25.99 0.05 61.86<br />

ISAM 17.24 37.83 5.28 60.35<br />

Mean 21.57666667 26.27666667 1.9 50.68666667<br />

Table 4.1 <strong>Soil</strong> carbon lost globally due to land use change over the period 1860 to 2010 (PgC)<br />

Data are from three vegetation models ISAM (Jain et al., 2013; El-Masri et al., 2013; Barman, Jain and Liang,<br />

2014 a, b); LPJ-GUESS (Smith et al., 2001; Pugh et al., 2015); and LPJmL (Bondeau et al., 2007; Schaphoff et al.,<br />

2013). Each model is run with and without historical land use change data and the difference between the ‘with<br />

land use change’ and ‘no land use change’ runs gives the loss due to land use change. The runs also included<br />

historical climate and CO 2<br />

and cover the period from 1900 to 2010.<br />

Impacts of land management and degradation<br />

Logging and fire are the major causes of forest degradation in the tropics (Bryan et al., 2013). Logging removes<br />

nutrients. Logging operations also cause soil disturbance affecting soil physical properties and nutrient levels<br />

(soil and litter) in tropical (e.g. Olander et al., 2005; Villela et al., 2006; Alexander, 2012) and temperate forests<br />

(Perez et al., 2009). Many physical, chemical, mineralogical, and biological soil properties can be affected by<br />

forest fires depending on fire regime (Certini, 2005). Increased frequency of fires contributes to degradation<br />

and reduces the resilience of the biomes to natural disturbances<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

58


A meta-analysis of 57 publications (Nave et al., 2011) showed that fire had significant overall effects on soil<br />

C (-26 percent) and soil N (-22 percent). Fires reduced forest floor storage (pool sizes only) by an average of 59<br />

percent (C) and 50 percent (N), but the concentrations of these two elements did not change. Prescribed fires<br />

caused smaller reductions in C and N storage (-46 percent and – 35 percent) than wildfires (-67 percent and –<br />

69 percent). Burned forest floors recovered their C and N pools in an average of 128 and 103 years, respectively.<br />

Among mineral soil layers, there were no significant changes in C or N storage, but C and N concentrations<br />

declined significantly ( -1 1 percent and – 12 percent, respectively). Mineral soil C and N concentrations were<br />

significantly reduced in response to wildfires but not after prescribed burning.<br />

A large field study in the Amazon (225 forest plots) examined the effects of anthropogenic forest disturbance<br />

(selective logging, fire, and fragmentation) on soil carbon pools. Results showed that the first 30 cm of the soil<br />

pool did not differ between disturbed primary forests and undisturbed areas of forest, suggesting a resistance<br />

to impacts from selective logging and understory fires (Berenguer et al., 2014). However, impacts of human<br />

disturbances on the soil carbon are of particular concern in tropical forests growing on organic soils.<br />

Forest fires produce pyrogenic carbonaceous matter (PCM), which can contain significant amounts of fused<br />

aromatic pyrogenic C (often also called black C), some of which can be preserved in soils over centuries and<br />

even millennia. This was found to be the reason for similar soil organic C contents modelled for scenarios with<br />

and without burning in Australia: the loss in litter C input by fire was compensated by the greater persistence<br />

of the pyrogenic C (Lehmann et al., 2008). Dissolved pyrogenic carbon (DPyC) from burning of the Brazilian<br />

Atlantic forest continued to be mobilized from the watershed each year in the rainy season, despite the fact<br />

that widespread forest burning ceased in 1973 (Dittmar et al., 2012). Fire events are a source of carbonaceous<br />

aerosol emissions, and these are considered a major source of global warming (Kaufman, Tanre and Boucher,<br />

2002)<br />

Shifting cultivation practices of clearing land through fire have been used for thousands of years but in<br />

recent years increasing demographic pressure has often reduced the duration of the fallow period and so<br />

affected system sustainability. A review by Ribeiro Filho, Adams and Sereni Murrieta (2013) reported negative<br />

impact on SOC associated with the conversion stage, although impacts depended on the characteristics of<br />

the burning. Chop-and-mulch of enriched fallows appears to be a promising alternative to slash-and-burn. A<br />

study in the Amazon (Comtea et al., 2012) found that this technique conserves soil bulk density and significantly<br />

increases nutrient concentrations and organic matter content compared to burnt cropland and to a control<br />

forest.<br />

Climate change and land use dynamics are the major drivers of dryland degradation with important<br />

feedbacks through changes in plant community composition – for example shrub encroachment or decrease<br />

in vegetation cover (D’Odorico et al., 2013). A review conducted by Ravi et al. (2010) indicated soil erosion as<br />

the most widespread form of land degradation in drylands, with wind and water erosion of dryland soils<br />

accounting for 87 percent of the land degradation. Grazing pressure, loss of vegetation cover, and the lack<br />

of adequate soil conservation practices increase the susceptibility of these soils to erosion. An analysis of<br />

224 dryland sites highlighted a negative effect of aridity on the concentration of soil organic C and total N,<br />

but a positive effect on the concentration of inorganic P (Delgado-Baquerizo et al., 2013). Because aridity is<br />

negatively related to plant cover, the authors argue that these effects might be related to the dominance in<br />

arid areas of physical processes such as rock weathering, a major source of P to ecosystems, over biological<br />

processes that provide more C and N, such as litter decomposition.<br />

Grasslands, including rangelands, shrublands, pastureland, and cropland sown with pasture and fodder<br />

crops, covered approximately 3.5 billion ha in 2000. This represented 26 percent of the global ice-free land<br />

area and 70 percent of the agricultural area, and contained about 20 percent of the world’s soil organic carbon<br />

(C) stocks. Portions of the grasslands on every continent have been degraded due to human activities – about<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

59


7.5 percent of grassland worldwide has been degraded because of overgrazing (Conant, 2012). Grassland<br />

management and grazing intensity can affect the stock of SOC. A multifactorial meta-analysis of grazer<br />

effects on SOC density (17 studies that include grazed and ungrazed plots) found a significant interaction<br />

between grazing intensity and grass type. Specifically, higher grazing intensity was associated with increased<br />

SOC in grasslands dominated by C 4<br />

grasses (increase of SOC by 6–7 percent), but with lower SOC in grasslands<br />

dominated by C 3<br />

grasses (decrease of SOC by an average 18 percent). Impacts of grazing were also influenced<br />

by precipitation. An increase in mean annual precipitation of 600 mm resulted in a 24 percent decrease in<br />

grazer effect size on finer textured soils, while on sandy soils the same increase in precipitation produced a 22<br />

percent increase in grazer effect on SOC (McSherry and Ritchie, 2013).<br />

4.3.2 | Land use intensity change<br />

Land use intensity has increased in recent decades, largely driven by the need to feed a growing population,<br />

by shifts in dietary patterns towards more meat consumption, and by the growing production of biofuels. At<br />

the same time, fast urbanization has occupied more of the land, reducing the stock available for agricultural<br />

production. Intensification has been widely advocated because of the many negative environmental<br />

consequences of clearing natural ecosystems to expand agricultural areas.<br />

However, intensifying management practices, such as fertilization, irrigation, tillage and increased<br />

livestock density, can have negative environmental impacts (Tilman et al., 2002). Intensifying land use can<br />

potentially reduce soil fertility. Intensification can also reduce soil resilience to extreme weather under climate<br />

change, to pests and biological invasion, to environmental pollutants and to other disasters. This section<br />

provides an overview of the benefits and consequences of intensifying use of agricultural lands. The section<br />

also highlights examples of how negative consequences can be minimized.<br />

Several factors influence the increase in land use intensity during the recent decades. On the demand side,<br />

three main factors are at play: (i) the need to meet the food, fibre, and fuel demands of a growing population;<br />

(ii) an increase in meat consumption as developing nations become wealthier and tastes change; and (iii)<br />

rising demand for crops for biofuels. On the supply side, settlements are occupying more land and so reducing<br />

the land available for agriculture.<br />

To meet the increased demand, it is estimated that food production will need to increase by 70 -1 00 percent<br />

by 2050 (World Bank, 2008; Royal Society of London, 2009; Keating et al., 2014). Of the two pathways of<br />

increasing production—intensification and expansion—intensification is widely promoted as the more<br />

sustainable option because of the negative environmental consequences of land expansion through<br />

deforestation and conversion of wetlands to cultivation (Foley et al., 2011; MA, 2005). However, the current<br />

increase in land use intensity is generally not sustainable. In order to give a clear picture of the effects of<br />

increased land use intensity, this section is organized according to the primary management practices that<br />

characterize intensification of agricultural lands (see Table 4.2 for summary).<br />

Nutrient management<br />

Nutrient inputs, from both natural and synthetic sources, are needed to sustain soil fertility and to supply<br />

the nutrient needs of higher yielding crop production. Intensification in recent years has led to the annual<br />

global flows of nitrogen and phosphorus now being more than double the natural levels (Matson et al.,<br />

1997; Smil, 2000; Tilman, 2002). The trend is still increasing – in China, for example, N input in agriculture in<br />

the 2000s was more than double the levels of the 1980s (State Bureau of Statistics-China, 2005). Nutrient<br />

management is particularly intensive in greenhouse production systems. In some parts of Asia, for example,<br />

up to six tons of chemical nutrient and hundreds tons of organic fertilizers are applied per hectare each year<br />

in order to achieve high yielding multiple cropping of vegetables (Liu et al., 2008). Between 50-60 percent of<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

60


the nutrient inputs remain in the croplands after harvest (West et al., 2014). When these nutrients are later<br />

mobilized, they become a major source of pollution to local, regional and coastal waters (Carpenter et al.,<br />

1998). Intensive nutrient input in agriculture has been shown to be a major cause of eutrophication and algae<br />

blooming in lakes and inshore waters. In addition, over-use of nitrogen chemical fertilizers has been found in<br />

many locations globally to be a cause of acidification and accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter,<br />

leading to further soil degradation in over-fertilized soils (Ju et al., 2009; Tian et al., 2012).<br />

Nutrient inputs also affect the earth’s climate. Globally, approximately one percent of nitrogen additions<br />

are released to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide (N 2<br />

O), a gas which has 300 times the warming power of<br />

carbon dioxide (Klein Goldewijk and van Drecht, 2006). China, India, and the United States account for ~56<br />

percent of all N 2<br />

O emissions from croplands, with 28 percent originating from China alone (West et al., 2014).<br />

One remedy is to increase the efficiency of nutrient use. Nutrient efficiency can be significantly increased –<br />

and N 2<br />

O emissions can be reduced – through changes in the rate, timing, placement, and type of application<br />

of nutrients, and by improving the balance amongst nutrients applied (Venterea et al., 2011). In addition, if best<br />

management practices are used, agricultural soils have the potential to be carbon storage areas (Paustian<br />

et al., 2004; Smith, 2004). Technological improvements are being made to the production of biochar which<br />

converts a fraction of the C present in the original material into a more persistent form through carbonisation.<br />

Biochar can then be used as a soil amendment to provide agronomic and environmental benefits (Lehmann<br />

and Joseph, 2015). In many cases, the presence of biochar has caused a reduction in N 2<br />

O emissions, especially<br />

when these originate from denitrification. However, the mechanics of the process are not yet fully understood<br />

(Cayuela et al., 2013; 2014).<br />

The effect of pesticides on soil biodiversity<br />

The large-scale use of pesticides may have direct or indirect effects on soil biodiversity. With the<br />

intensification of agriculture, the use of pesticides has increased worldwide to approximately two million<br />

tonnes per year (herbicides 47.5 percent, insecticides 29.5 percent, fungicides 17.5 percent, other 5.5 percent<br />

by De et al. (2014)). Studies of the effect that pesticides have on soil biodiversity have shown contradictory<br />

results. Effects are dependent on a variety of factors including the chemical composition, the rate applied,<br />

the buffering capacity of the soil, the soil organisms in question, and the time-scale. For example, Boldt and<br />

Jacobsen (1998) tested the effects of sulfonylurea herbicides on strains of fluorescent pseudomonads cultured<br />

from agricultural field soils. They found that the herbicide Metsulfuron methyl was toxic to the majority of<br />

fluorescent pseaudomonads (77 strains) in low concentrations, while Chlorsulfuron was only toxic at high<br />

concentrations, and Thifensulfuron methyl was toxic only to a few strains, even at high concentrations.<br />

In a review by Bünemann, Schwenke and Van Zwieten (2006) of the effects of pesticide application on<br />

soil organisms, there were no data available for 325 of 380 active constituent pesticides registered for use in<br />

Australia. The review thus effectively highlighted the huge gap in knowledge. A synthesis of the impact of<br />

herbicides on non-target organisms concluded that herbicides did not have a major effect on soil organisms<br />

(Bünemann, Schwenke and Van Zwieten, 2006) with the exception of butachlor, which was toxic to<br />

earthworms when applied at typical agricultural rates (Panda and Sahu, 2004). In addition, the application of<br />

bromoxynil herbicides caused a shift in the communities of four out of five targeted bacterial taxa even after<br />

degradation of the herbicide (Baxter and Cummings, 2008). Avoidance behaviour to phendimedipham has<br />

also been observed for collembola (Heupel, 2002) and earthworms (Amorim, Rombke and Soares, 2005).<br />

Insecticide application, however, has a much greater effect on soil biota, including changes in microbial<br />

community composition (Pandey and Singh, 2004), lower collembolan abundance (Endlweber, Schadler and<br />

Scheu, 2005) and earthworm reproduction. Because some species of earthworm such as Eisenia Fetida can be<br />

easily bred and because they ingest large quantities of organic matter in the soil, earthworms have often been<br />

used as bioindicators of chemical toxicity in soils (Yasmin and D’Souza, 2010). A variety of studies have reported<br />

changes in earthworm reproductive rates, growth rates and weight loss when the pesticides Malathion<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

61


(Espinoza-Navarro and Bustos-Obregon, 2005), Chlorpyrifos (Zhou et al., 2007; De Silva et al., 2010), Benomyl<br />

(Römbke, Garcia and Scheffczyk, 2007), Carbofuran (De Silva et al., 2010) were applied to soil in laboratory<br />

experiments. Non-target effects of insecticide applications may be highly dependent on the organism since<br />

field application of Chlorpyrifos did not affect the abundance of soil predatory mites (Navarro-Campos et al.,<br />

2012). Fungicides have also demonstrated significant negative effects on earthworms (Eijsackers et al., 2005).<br />

In particular, copper-based fungicides that are resistant to degradation have caused long-term reductions in<br />

earthworm populations (Van Zwieten et al., 2004).<br />

Although an assessment of soil food webs across Europe did not specifically focus on pesticide application,<br />

the study demonstrated that land-use intensification was related to decreased diversity of soil fauna and<br />

resulted in less diversity among functional groups. Larger soil animals showed the most sensitivity (Tsiafouli<br />

et al., 2015). However, there have been no such comprehensive studies to quantify the effects of pesticides on<br />

soil organisms at multiple trophic levels across regions. Such studies need to consider also the indirect effect<br />

of pesticides, including interactions between pesticides and biotic factors. Since below-ground biodiversity<br />

is intimately linked to above-ground vegetation patterns (De Deyn and van der Putten, 2005) and vice versa<br />

(Bardgett and van der Putten, 2014), changes in plant diversity resulting from herbicide may cause indirect<br />

effects of herbicide application.<br />

Water management<br />

The area of irrigated croplands has doubled in the last 50 years and irrigation now accounts for 70 percent<br />

of all water diversions on the planet (Gleick, 2003). Irrigated areas account for 34 percent of crop production,<br />

yet only cover 24 percent of all cropland area (Siebert and Doll, 2010). With the increased frequency of<br />

drought under climate change, demand for agricultural water is rising in many locations. Not surprisingly,<br />

irrigation is most commonly used in more arid areas. Where a high proportion of available water is used for<br />

agriculture, this can cause water stress for both people and nature. Water efficiency can be improved through<br />

infrastructure and through better management practices. Irrigation can potentially increase soil salinity in<br />

dry regions (Ghassemi, Jakeman and Nix, 1995). Where salinization occurs, additional irrigation is needed to<br />

‘flush’ the salts beyond the root zone of the crops. This additional water requirement can further exacerbate<br />

water stress.<br />

Harvest frequency<br />

Land use intensity can also be increased by harvesting a parcel of farmland more frequently (double<br />

cropping, triple cropping). Approximately 9 percent of crop production increases from 1961-2007 came from<br />

increases in the harvest frequency (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). As more land was double cropped, the<br />

global harvested area increased four times faster than total cropland between 2000 and 2011 (Ray and Foley,<br />

2013). In addition, with global warming, the areas suited for double or even triple cropping are extending into<br />

subtropical and warm temperate regions (Liu et al., 2013a). The factors involved in this fast rate of increase<br />

include: fewer crop failures; fewer fallow years; and an increase in multi-cropping.<br />

Greenhouse production has allowed multiple cropping around the world. For fruit and vegetable crops,<br />

world greenhouse cultivated area reached a total area of 408 890 ha in 2013, which includes as many as five<br />

harvests in a single year. This increasing harvest frequency has reduced soil quality through soil compaction<br />

and has increased the risk of pathogen diseases. The intensive use of pesticides and herbicides in greenhouses<br />

not only affects soil quality but creates risks to human health. In some greenhouse systems, long term<br />

multiple cropping has led to soil acidification, salinization and biological deterioration, especially where large<br />

amounts of fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide have been used. In these situations, there is a need to improve<br />

management practices, using organic matter, balancing nutrient additions and adopting intermittent fallow.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

62


Livestock density<br />

Livestock production is projected to increase to meet the growing demand for livestock products from<br />

a rising population and from an increase in per capita consumption. The greatest increases in per capita<br />

demand are projected to be in developing and transition countries (Bouwman et al., 2006). Since the 1970s,<br />

most increases in livestock production have resulted from intensification, with a shift to a greater fraction<br />

of livestock raised in industrial conditions (Bouwmann et al., 2006). For example, 76-79 percent of pork and<br />

poultry production is now industrialized (Herrero et al., 2013).<br />

Industrial livestock production systems can be highly polluting. The manure from animals, the inputs for<br />

growing animal feed, and the soil loss from intensively managed areas can all be major sources of water<br />

pollution to local and downstream freshwater ecosystems. Where natural ecosystems are cleared and<br />

converted to pasture, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions, the lands are typically low potential and have<br />

a high risk of soil erosion and soil carbon/nutrient depletion (Delgado et al., 1999; Seré and Steinfeld, 1996).<br />

The soils capacity for water storage and their biodiversity are also at risk. Moreover, intensified livestock<br />

production requires an increased use of veterinary medicines, sulfa-antibiotics and hormones, all of which<br />

carry risks of pollution to soil, water and the livestock products themselves, with risks to biological and human<br />

health.<br />

Forestry harvest and wetland draining<br />

Forests and wetlands and their soils are massive reservoirs of carbon. In fact, forest soils store approximately<br />

the same amount of carbon as the living biomass of the forest itself (FAO, 2010). Wetlands are important<br />

not only for the huge carbon pool they contain but also for their role in the hydrological cycle. However,<br />

wetlands along big river banks, lakes and estuaries have been increasingly developed for croplands/bioenergy<br />

production in recent decades, particularly in Asia. The majority of soil carbon is concentrated in peatlands<br />

within the boreal forest as well as tropical forests in Southeast Asia. Around the world, deforestation causes<br />

~25 percent of the total loss of soil carbon (Guo and Gifford, 2002; Murty et al., 2002). This loss largely stems<br />

from oxidation of the organic matter and from soil erosion. In China over the last four decades, almost 1.3<br />

million ha of wetlands have been converted to crop production, causing the loss of about 1.5 Pg C of soil carbon<br />

(Zhang et al., 2009). Deforestation continues through conversion to agriculture and through extraction of<br />

forest products. Between 2000 and 2012, there was a new loss of 1.5 million square kilometres of forests, with<br />

the most pronounced trend in the tropics (Hansen et al. 2013). <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and organic matter oxidation can<br />

be reduced through selective tree harvesting rather than clear felling, and by avoiding deforestation on steep<br />

slopes. Draining and cultivating wetlands can also affect local and regional water storage.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

63


Research needs<br />

It will be evident from the discussion in this section that much remains to be learned. Amongst the priority<br />

research questions are the following:<br />

1. Sustainable intensification – How can we get the benefits from intensification while minimizing the<br />

associated environmental and social costs?<br />

2. Trade-offs between soils and efficiency – How can we manage for resilient soil and related ecosystem<br />

services while continuing to maximize efficiency? To what extent can we have both?<br />

3. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation and intensification – What is the extent of degraded soils? There are currently no sound<br />

estimates. What portion of degraded soils can be attributed to un-sustainable intensification?<br />

4. Options and trade-offs for improved soil management – What can we learn from management practices<br />

used in intensification areas to help restore degraded soils? Are there any options that can integrate<br />

best management practice for sustainable intensification? What are the short – and long-term tradeoffs<br />

of resource use and sustainability? What are the environmental and social costs and economic<br />

benefits of land use intensification?<br />

5. Farming practices and soil health – How do changes in harvest frequency and crop rotation affect soil<br />

resilience? How much change is needed to restore degraded soils?<br />

Land<br />

intensification<br />

Sector Distribution Major<br />

environmental<br />

consequence<br />

Knowledge gap<br />

Cropping<br />

intensification<br />

Harvest<br />

frequency<br />

Globally<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> quality and<br />

resilience<br />

Ecosystem service<br />

Continuing<br />

monoculture<br />

Developing<br />

and transition<br />

countries<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> health,<br />

pesticide residue<br />

Biological resilience<br />

Nutrient<br />

intensification<br />

Over fertilization<br />

Developing<br />

countries<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification,<br />

water pollution,<br />

N 2<br />

O emission<br />

and nitrate<br />

accumulation<br />

Rate reducing versus<br />

balancing?<br />

Irrigation Submerged Rice Developing<br />

countries, Asia<br />

Water scarcity,<br />

methane<br />

emission<br />

Trade-offs C and water,<br />

Dry crops<br />

Arid/semi-arid<br />

regions<br />

Secondary<br />

salinization,<br />

water scarcity<br />

Competition for water<br />

Livestock<br />

intensification<br />

Over grazing<br />

Developing<br />

countries<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation,<br />

water storage,<br />

C loss<br />

Forage versus feed crops?<br />

Industrial<br />

breeding<br />

Industrialized<br />

countries<br />

Waste, water<br />

pollution, residue<br />

of veterinary<br />

medicine and<br />

antibiotics<br />

Safe waste treatment<br />

and recycling<br />

Forest clearance,<br />

wetlands<br />

drainage<br />

Deforestation.<br />

wetland shrink<br />

Developing<br />

and transition<br />

countries<br />

Biodiversity,<br />

natural wealth,<br />

C loss<br />

Agro-benefit versus<br />

natural value<br />

Table 4.2 Threats to soil resource quality and functioning under agricultural intensification<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

64


4.3.3 | Land use change resulting in irreversible soil change<br />

In this section we deal with soil sealing and mining, which have been identified as two important soil<br />

degradation processes occurring around the world. The current extent and rate of growth of soil sealing and<br />

mining are significant, and create considerable risks to essential ecosystem services. These changes in land<br />

use nearly always require a trade-off between various social, economic and environmental needs.<br />

Sealing and land take<br />

The ongoing urbanization and conversion of the landscape with settlements, infrastructure and services is<br />

occurring in many regions. Europe and Asia, in particular, are experiencing high rates of urban expansion and<br />

urban sprawl, and there are often insufficient incentives to re-use brownfield sites. These factors are causing<br />

an increase in land take and soil sealing. The drivers are essentially economic and demographic growth. In<br />

Europe, America and Oceania, at least 70 to 80 percent of the population currently lives in urban areas. The<br />

rate of urbanization is expected to continue to increase, particularly in Asia and Africa.<br />

The concept of land take covers all forms of conversion for the purpose of settlement, including: the<br />

development of scattered settlements in rural areas; the expansion of urban areas around an urban nucleus;<br />

the conversion of land within an urban area (densification); and the expansion of transport infrastructure such<br />

as roads, highways and railways. Broadly, this discussion considers as land take any conversion of agricultural,<br />

natural or semi-natural land cover to an ‘artificial’ (e.g. human-made) area. Artificial land cover classes are<br />

categorized in the Corine Land Cover system – see Table 4.3.<br />

A greater or smaller part of land take will result in soil sealing. <strong>Soil</strong> sealing means the permanent covering<br />

of an area of land and its soil by impermeable artificial material such as asphalt or concrete, for example<br />

through buildings and roads. As shown in Figure 4.6, the sealed area is only part of a settlement area. Gardens,<br />

urban parks, leisure areas and other green spaces within the boundaries of settlements are not covered by an<br />

impervious surface or are only partially covered. They thus form part of a land take but do not contribute to<br />

soil sealing (Prokop, Jobstmann and Schöbauer, 2011.) The ratio between sealed area and total area for a given<br />

land use class is measured by the soil sealing index. An example of this index, calculated for the Italian region<br />

of Emilia-Romagna, is shown in Table 4.4.<br />

Table 4.3 Artificial areas in Corine Land Cover Legend<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

65


A) Typical structure of settlement B) Sealed areas about 70 percent (black color)<br />

Figure 4.6 Schematic diagram showing areas sealed (B) as a result of infrastructure development for a settlement (A). Source:<br />

European Union, 2012.<br />

Table 4.4 Artificial areas in Emilia Romagna according to the Corine Land Cover Legend and<br />

sealing index.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

66


Impact of land take<br />

Land take, by its definition, is the subtraction of an area from a previous agricultural, natural or semi-natural<br />

land use. According to this definition, the most obvious impact on the ecosystem services that can be provided<br />

by soil is on the production of biomass, and in particular of food. To clarify the concept, we may imagine that<br />

a city expands its urbanized area by a new allotment of 100 ha created at the expense of agricultural land. This<br />

area will be covered by buildings, private and public gardens, commercial centres, roads, etc. The entire area<br />

will clearly lose most of its capacity to produce food, with the possible minor exception of family horticulture<br />

in unsealed areas such as gardens or allotments. Had the entire area been previously cultivated with, say,<br />

winter wheat with an average yield of 5 tonnes ha -1 , the total loss in terms of food production potential will be<br />

equal to 500 tonnes of winter wheat per year.<br />

Other ecosystem services are at risk also. Water infiltration and purification and carbon storage are mainly<br />

reduced by the effective sealed area, and not by the entire land taken. Support to biodiversity is clearly affected,<br />

although the degree depends on the different groups of organisms and also on the design of the urbanized area.<br />

In this context, a positive mitigation role can be played by ‘Urban Green Infrastructure’ – the incorporation of<br />

a network of high-quality green spaces and other environmental features. Green Infrastructure can include<br />

natural areas as well as human-made rural and urban elements such as urban green spaces, reforestation<br />

zones, green bridges, green roofs, eco-ducts to allow crossing of linear barriers, corridors, parks, restored<br />

floodplains, biodiverse farmland.<br />

Regulation of land take and mitigation of its impacts<br />

Where policy aims to minimize land take, measures can be implemented to encourage re-use of existing<br />

urban areas such as derelict areas, brownfields and upgrading of degraded neighborhoods. Measures<br />

promoting densification of existing urban areas can also contribute to the reduction of land take.<br />

Fiscal measures can prevent speculative urban sprawl. A number of municipalities, and regional<br />

governments, especially in Europe, have already adopted policies designed to achieve zero net urban expansion.<br />

However, zero expansion becomes more problematic when there is significant demographic pressure and a<br />

high rate of rural to urban migration.<br />

Rational and efficient urban planning and intelligent building and infrastructure design can also help<br />

reduce land take. In the past, urban planners, architects and civil engineers too often considered soil as a raw<br />

material, abundantly available and of limited value. Examples of efficient consideration of the value of soil in<br />

urban development include: the construction of parking lots in the basement of buildings; and ‘green’ covering<br />

of areas that are only occasionally used, such as parking lots for exhibitions and fairs etc.<br />

Where expansion of urban and built-up areas is a policy and planning imperative, intelligent urban planning<br />

needs to take account of the soil dimension to mitigate the impact of land take. An education process is<br />

needed to make urban planners aware of the value of soil quality and land capability and of the options for<br />

mitigating negative impacts of land take.<br />

Impacts of soil sealing<br />

Sealing by its nature has a major effect on soil, diminishing many of its benefits. Normal construction<br />

practice is to remove the upper layer of topsoil, which delivers most of the soil-related ecosystem services,<br />

in order to be able to develop strong foundations in the subsoil or underlying rock to support the building or<br />

infrastructure. Where strong foundations are not required, only a thin layer of topsoil is generally excavated<br />

and the surfaces are simply covered by a layer of impervious material, such as asphalt or concrete. Both<br />

techniques impair or eliminate the soil’s capacity to deliver ecosystem services.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

67


The main impacts include the following.<br />

1. Water infiltration and purification are lost, and regulation of the water cycle is completely altered. The<br />

concentration time of water flow is shortened, promoting flood events.<br />

2. <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity is impaired, as sealing prevents the production, release and recycling of organic material,<br />

so affecting the soil biological communities (Marfenina et al., 2008). In addition, the alteration of soil<br />

water regimes, soil structure and redox potential have a strong impact on soil biodiversity.<br />

3. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon storage potential is fundamentally altered (Jones et al., 2005), particularly where topsoil,<br />

which normally contains about half of the organic carbon in mineral soils, is stripped off.<br />

4. The urban microclimate is altered. The reduction of evapotranspiration in urban areas due to the loss of<br />

vegetation and through alteration of albedo strengthens the ‘urban heat island’ effect (Früh et al., 2011).<br />

Prevention of soil sealing and mitigation of its impacts<br />

Appropriate mitigation measures can be taken in order to maintain some of the ecosystem functions of<br />

soils and to reduce negative effects on the environment and human well-being. Key options available to urban<br />

planners and managers include: (i) minimizing conversion of green areas; (ii) re-use of already built-up areas,<br />

such as brownfield sites; (iii) using permeable cover materials instead of concrete or asphalt; (iv) supporting<br />

Green Infrastructure (see above); and (v) providing incentives to developers to minimize soil sealing.<br />

In practice, planners need to be able to evaluate the tradeoffs and ensure that policy instruments are used<br />

to ensure optimal outcomes which consider both human needs for urbanization and the preservation of the<br />

integrity of the soil and its services:<br />

1. Existing policies for development of settlements and infrastructure should be reviewed and adapted to<br />

take account of the value of soils, particularly where subsidies or other incentives are driving unplanned<br />

land take and soil sealing (Prokop, Jobstmann and Schöbauer, 2011).<br />

2. An integrated approach to urban planning should be followed. Existing best practice has demonstrated<br />

that soil sealing can be limited, mitigated and compensated. This requires that spatial planning<br />

follow an integrated approach and involve the full commitment of all relevant public authorities and<br />

governance entities responsible for land management, such as municipalities, counties and regions<br />

(Siebielec et al., 2010).<br />

3. Specific regional and local approaches can be developed. These could, for example, take into account<br />

unused resources at the local level such as a particularly large number of empty buildings or brownfield<br />

sites.<br />

Mining<br />

Ancient mining<br />

Mining is the extraction from the Earth of rocks, valuable minerals, and other geological materials of economic<br />

interest. It is one of the most ancient activities in human history (Mighall et al., 2002; Shotyk et al., 1998).<br />

Mining for specific materials such as quartz, silex and clays began as far back as the Palaeolithic – the Old<br />

Stone Age – when the first stone tools were developed. In the Neolithic era – the New Stone Age – flint mines<br />

existed in Belgium, Britain and elsewhere. Landscape records and evidence from bogs show that mining<br />

activities became more intense with the development of metal tools in the Bronze Age, and subsequently<br />

in the Iron Age (Martínez-Cortizas et al., 2002; Shotyk et al., 1998). Examples of the environmental impact<br />

of ancient mining are numerous (Figure 4.7) (López – Merino et al., 2010; Grattan, Huxley and Pyatt, 2003;<br />

Fernández Caliani, 2008).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

68


Photo by F. Macias<br />

Photo by J.C. Fernández Caliani<br />

Photo by F. Macias<br />

Prepared by P. Reich<br />

Figure 4.7 (A) Panoramic view of Las Medulas opencast gold mine (NW Spain). The Roman extractive technique – known as ‘ruina<br />

montis’ – involved the massive use of water that resulted in important geomorphological changes; (B) Weathered gossan of the Rio<br />

Tinto Cu mine, considered the birthplace of the Copper and Bronze Ages; (C) typical colour of Rio Tinto (‘red river’ in Spanish), one of<br />

the best known examples of formation of acid mine waters. These are inhabited by extremophile organisms.<br />

Impact of mining<br />

The impact of mining on the environment differs greatly depending on the type of extraction, the ore<br />

or material exploited, and the method used to process the material extracted (Moore and Luoma, 1990).<br />

Traditional underground mining, which follows profitable veins beneath the earth’s surface, has less impact<br />

than open cast mining activities – also referred to as strip mining − which grew very rapidly in the last hundred<br />

years (Salomons, 1995). In some instances, entire mountains have been literally blasted apart to reach thin ore<br />

vein seams within, leaving permanent scars on the landscape. Nonetheless, mining operations themselves<br />

affect relatively small areas. By contrast, significant environmental problems are caused by tailing and waste<br />

rock deposits and by subsequent smelting operations. Pollutants can be transferred to surrounding areas by<br />

acid mine drainage or by atmospheric deposition of wind-blown dust. The incidence of these problems depends<br />

on local climatic and hydrologic conditions (Aslibekian and Moles 2003; Batista, Abreu and Serrano, 2007;<br />

López, Gónzalez and Romero, 2008). Other environmental effects, in addition to those caused by pollutants,<br />

include deforestation, erosion and formation of sinkholes (Meuser, 2010; Hester and Harrison, 2001).<br />

Only a small fraction of the material extracted is valuable ore. The ore needs to be separated by milling<br />

and flotation from the large volume of other material discarded as tailings. When the remaining concentrate<br />

is refined by processes such as smelting, flue dust and slag are produced (Hutchinson, 1979). Atmospheric<br />

contamination has commonly occurred throughout the world during smelting operations, leading to<br />

contaminated soils and risks to livestock (Down and Stocks, 1977; Munshower, 1977). Mining for coal, gold,<br />

uranium, wolfram, tin, platinoids and, in particular, poly-metallic sulphides has created large environmental<br />

impacts on soil, water and biota. Sulphide minerals include iron sulphides such as pyrite and pyrrhothite,<br />

and other poly-metallic sulphides, such as those containing Cu, Pb, Zn, Hg, Cd, Tl, Sb, Bi etc. These sulphides<br />

can also in some instances combine with arsenides or selenides to form sulfoarsenides or sulfoselenides<br />

(Evangelou, 1995; Abreu et al., 2010).<br />

Sulphide minerals oxidise when brought to surface conditions (Nordstrom and Southam, 1997; Nordstrom<br />

and Alpers, 1999). The sulphide oxidation can cause extreme changes in Eh and pH (Figure 4.8) – negative<br />

pH values (as low as -3.6) have been measured in the acid mine waters of the Richmond mine in California<br />

(Nordstrom and Alpers, 1999). Depending on the local geochemical and hydrological conditions, sulphide<br />

oxidation can also affect the electrical conductivity of the system and may lead to elevated concentrations<br />

of many toxic elements in soils and waters nearby. Waters downstream of these mine systems (Figure 4.7C)<br />

are frequently hyperacid, hyperoxidant and hyperconductive. These waters may exhibit high activities of: (i)<br />

various metal species such as Al +3 , Al-SO 4<br />

); (ii) heavy metal species, for example Cu +2 , Cd +2 , Zn +2 , Hg +2 y Hg 0 ;<br />

and (iii) metalloids, including arseniates, arsenites and seleniates (Sengupta, 1993; Macías, 1996; Monterroso,<br />

Alvarez and Macías, 1994; Monterroso et al., 1998, 1999; Azcue, 1999). Smelting operations of sulphide minerals<br />

also generate SO 2<br />

, which, if not recovered, is released into the atmosphere and thus contributes to acid<br />

deposition (described in Section 4.4).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

69


The mining of gold deserves special attention given its contribution to Hg emissions (Drude de Lacerda,<br />

2003). Mercury is used to concentrate the fine gold particles through amalgamation and then the gold is<br />

separated from the amalgam by applying heat. When this process is carried out under uncontrolled conditions<br />

– as in small-scale gold mining (Drude de Lacerda, 2003) – Hg volatilises to the atmosphere. Tailings from Hg<br />

amalgamation are then leached with cyanide, and waste contaminated with metals and cyanide is released<br />

into the environment (Veiga et al., 2009). Arsenic exposure has also been recorded in many gold and base<br />

metal producing countries (Williams, 2001). However, arsenate and arsenite mobilisation can be controlled<br />

with soil colloidal compounds such as reactive Fe and Al (Goldberg, 2002).<br />

As materials from mining are exposed to the environmental conditions of the Earth’s surface, these minesoils<br />

develop through weathering (Sencindiver and Ammons, 2000). However, their properties differ considerably<br />

from the original soil. They contain a high percentage of rock fragments, a low nutrient content, and elevated<br />

levels of potentially harmful trace elements. They also usually lack a distinct horizonation. These soils are<br />

in fact very young soils characterised by properties that limit their functions and their capability to support<br />

vegetation (Macias, 1996; Vega et al., 2004; Abreu and Magalhães, 2009). When the overburden contains<br />

sulphidic material such as pyritic mine waste, the major weathering process is the oxidative dissolution<br />

of pyrite. Here the rate of soil formation is mainly controlled by the sulphide content and its particle-size<br />

distribution, causing strongly acidic conditions, as described above (Neel et al., 2003; Haering, Daniels and<br />

Galbraith, 2004). Quite often, restoration of mine soils requires the addition of exogenous material to correct<br />

the extreme pH, Eh and/or EC values and the anomalous concentrations of toxic elements common in these<br />

systems which are generally bioavailable and susceptible to mobilisation.<br />

1.2<br />

20<br />

PO2 =1 P h2<br />

=1<br />

0.6<br />

Hyperacid<br />

soils<br />

Circum-neutral<br />

soils<br />

Calcareous<br />

soils<br />

10<br />

Eh<br />

(volts)<br />

0<br />

-0.6<br />

Acid<br />

soils<br />

Thionic<br />

soils<br />

O 2<br />

pe<br />

Alkaline<br />

soils<br />

H 2<br />

-10<br />

0<br />

Hydric<br />

soils<br />

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14<br />

pH<br />

Figure 4.8 Eh-pH conditions of thionic/sulfidic soils and of hyperacid soils. Source: Otero et al., 2008.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

70


The formation of sulfidic material requires strongly reducing conditions and slight acidity. Once these<br />

are oxidised, and in the absence of minerals with high acid buffering capacity, extremely acid and oxidising<br />

conditions are generated. The dashed envelope in Figure 4.8 is the approximate extent of redox-pH conditions<br />

of mineral soils (with the exception of hyper-acid soils).<br />

Preventing impacts from mining<br />

The rehabilitation of abandoned mines is a difficult and costly task. In fact, in many instances, the<br />

landscape cannot be repaired. Some mining methods may have significant environmental and public health<br />

effects. The Aznalcollar pyritic sludge spill (SW Spain) (López-Pamo et al., 1999; Grimalt, Ferrer and McPherson,<br />

1999; Aguilar et al., 2004; Calvo de Anta and Macias, 2009) is such an example. It occurred in 1998 in the<br />

surroundings of Doñana Park − the largest reserve of bird species in Europe − as a result of the failure of a<br />

tailings dam which contained several million tons of pyrite stockpile, flotation tailings and acid waters. The<br />

toxic spill contaminated ca. 26 km 2 of riverbanks and adjacent farmlands, extending 45 km downstream, with<br />

an estimated quantity of 16 000 tonnes of Zn and Pb, 10 000 tonnes of As, 4 000 tonnes of Cu, 1 000 tonnes<br />

of Sb, 120 tonnes of Co, 100 tonnes of Tl and Bi, 50 tonnes of Cd and Ag, 30 tonnes of Hg, and 20 tonnes of Se.<br />

Mining operations have a responsibility to protect the environment: air, water, soils, ecosystems and<br />

landscape. Many countries require reclamation plans for mining sites to follow environmental and rehabilitation<br />

codes. Nonetheless, mine restoration is still problematic, mainly because the environmental impacts were<br />

only recently understood or appreciated (Azcue, 1999; Sengupta, 1993). In addition, the technology available<br />

has not always been adequate to prevent or control environmental damage. Restoration of such systems<br />

requires a thorough understanding of material properties and their geochemistry. Only through such an<br />

understanding can the current and future behaviour of such systems be predicted and appropriate decisions<br />

taken to ensure their restoration (Gil et al., 1990; Macías-García, Camps Arbestain and Macías, 2009; Macías-<br />

García et al., 2009).<br />

Development of tailor-made Technosols to restore mine soils<br />

Technosols are defined by the FAO (2014b) as those soils with recent human activities in industrial and urban<br />

environments which have resulted in the presence of artificial and human-made objects. Technosols often<br />

result from the abandonment of urban, mining or industrial waste. These soils tend to have a large content of<br />

artefacts – that is objects that are either human-made, strongly transformed by human activity, or excavated<br />

(e.g. mine spoils, rubbles, cinders) (FAO, 2014b).<br />

Throughout history, humans have formed soils – ‘anthropogenic soils’ - and in certain cases these soils have<br />

proved more fertile that natural soils nearby (Sombroek, Nachtergaele and Hebel, 1993). Thus, it is feasible<br />

to produce specific Technosols which can fulfil the environmental and productive functions of natural soils –<br />

essentially, tailor-made Technosols. This may require the formulation and mixing of artefacts and other waste<br />

materials such as manure and biosolids. The production of these Technosols could be a feasible technique<br />

through which waste products are reused and the elements they contain are returned to their biogeochemical<br />

cycles, while restoring degraded areas and contributing to the sequestration of C in soils and biomass (Macias<br />

and Camps Arbestain, 2010).<br />

Environmental problems associated with this use of Technosols may be prevented if: (i) the characteristics<br />

of the materials used provide the soil with adequate buffering properties against contaminants, pH and/or<br />

redox changes; and (ii) there is a good understanding of how the constituent mixtures will evolve over time<br />

under the pedoclimatic conditions of the area to be restored. Figure 4.9 illustrates the benefits of the use<br />

of tailor-made Technosols in the restoration of an abandoned Cu mine rich in pyrite (Macías-García, Camps<br />

Arbestain and Macías, 2009; Macías-García et al., 2009; Macías and Camps Arbestain, 2010).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

71


Prepared by P. Reich<br />

Figure 4.9 Use of different Technosols derived from wastes in the recovery of hyperacid soils and waters in the restored mine of Touro<br />

(Galicia, NW Spain).<br />

4.4 | Atmospheric deposition<br />

4.4.1 | Atmospheric deposition<br />

The impacts of the deposition of atmospheric pollutants on soils vary with respect to soil sensitivity to<br />

a specific pollutant and to the total pollutant load. Anthropogenic emissions of sulphur, nitrogen and trace<br />

elements to the atmosphere mainly derive from fossil fuel and waste combustion in, for example, power<br />

generation, incineration, industry and transport. Emissions may also derive from non-combustion processes<br />

such as agricultural fertilizers or waste amendments. Mining activities may also contribute, for example<br />

Hg mining. Once in the atmosphere, these pollutants can be transported off-site and even cross national<br />

borders before being deposited either as dry or wet deposition. Deposition is more accentuated in forests,<br />

especially in coniferous forests (because of reduced wind speeds) and in areas of high elevation because of high<br />

precipitation rates.<br />

Once in the soil, pollutants can be mobilised by being: (i) released back to the atmosphere; (ii) made available<br />

to biota; (iii) leached out to surface waters; or (iv) transported to other areas by soil erosion. Pollutants disrupt<br />

natural biogeochemical cycles by altering soil functions. This disruption may come about through direct<br />

changes to the nutrient status, acidity, and bioavailability of toxic substances, or through indirect changes<br />

to soil biodiversity, plant uptake and litter inputs. <strong>Soil</strong> sensitivity to atmospheric pollution varies with respect<br />

to: (i) key properties influenced by geology and associated pedogenesis such as cation exchange capacity,<br />

soil base saturation, aluminium, or rate of base cation supply by mineral weathering); (ii) organic matter<br />

content and carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N); and (iii) position of the water table. When atmospheric pollution<br />

is associated with sulphate deposition, the capacity of soils to adsorb sulphate (e.g. soils with a dominance<br />

of short-range ordered constituents) plays a key role in buffering the acidification process (Camps Arbestain,<br />

Barreal and Macías, 1999; Rodríguez-Lado, Montanarella and Macías, 2007). Harmful effects on soil function<br />

and structure occur where deposition exceeds the ‘critical load’ - the specific amount of one or more pollutants<br />

that a particular soil can buffer (Nilsson and Grennfelt, 1988). Estimates and mapping of critical loads of acidity<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

72


are however strongly dependent on the neutralisation mechanisms considered in the analysis, for example,<br />

the inclusion or exclusion of sulphate adsorption (Rodríguez-Lado, Montanarella and Macías, 2007). Spatial<br />

differences in soil sensitivity − commonly defined by the ‘critical load’ − and in pollutant deposition result in<br />

an uneven global distribution of impacted soils (Figure 4.10). For instance, global emissions of sulphur and<br />

nitrogen have increased 3–10 fold since the pre-industrial period (van Aardenne et al., 2001), yet critical loads<br />

for acidification are only exceeded in 7–17 percent of the global natural terrestrial ecosystems area (Bouwman<br />

et al., 2002).<br />

4.4.2 | Main atmospheric pollutants: Synopsis of current state of knowledge<br />

Since the 1980s, emissions of pollutants, notably sulphur, across Europe and North America have declined.<br />

The decline is due to the establishment of protocols under the 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary<br />

Air Pollution (LRTAP) and the 1990 United States Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) (Greaver et al., 2012; Reis et<br />

al., 2012; EEA, 2014). Conversely, emissions in South and East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and South America are<br />

likely to increase in response to industrial and agricultural development (Kuylenstierna et al., 2001; Dentener<br />

et al., 2006). Further emission increases are also occurring in remote areas due to mining activity, such as oil<br />

sands extraction in Canada (Kelly et al., 2010; Whitfield et al., 2010).<br />

Sulphur deposition<br />

Sulphur emissions primarily result from combustion of coal and oil and are typically associated with power<br />

generation and heavy industry. In 2001, deposition exceedances of 20 kg S ha -1 yr -1 were detected in regions<br />

of China and Republic of Korea, Western Europe and eastern North America (Vet et al., 2014; Figure 4.10.(a)).<br />

Deposition in unaffected ecosystems is


The increase in soil pH following the reduction of sulphur emissions shows that the acidification process<br />

is reversible, although the recovery time is highly variable and dependent on soil properties. Some areas<br />

with organic soils where deposition has declined are showing either slow or no recovery (Greaver et al., 2012;<br />

Lawrence et al., 2012; RoTAP, 2012). On agricultural soils, lime can be applied to increase soil pH. However,<br />

50-80 percent of sulphur deposition on land is on natural land (Dentener et al., 2006). Application of lime to<br />

naturally acidic forest soils can cause further acidification of deep soil layers by increasing the decomposition in<br />

surface litter (Lundström et al., 2003). In acid waters, the addition of liming material may favour the formation<br />

of polymeric Al hydroxides (e.g. Al 13<br />

OH 27<br />

+12), which are highly toxic to aquatic species (Monterroso, Alvarez and<br />

Macías, 1994).<br />

Wider effects of acidification are starting to be understood through long-term monitoring. Decreased<br />

organic matter decomposition due to acidification has increased soil carbon storage in tropical forests (Lu<br />

et al., 2014). In wetland soils, methane (CH 4<br />

) emissions have also been suppressed. This is because sulphatereducing<br />

bacteria have a higher affinity for substrate (H 2<br />

and acetate) than methanogenic microbes (Gauci<br />

et al., 2004). Conversely, declining sulphur deposition has been associated with increased dissolved organic<br />

carbon fluxes from organic soils (Monteith et al., 2007) and decreased soil carbon stocks in temperate forest<br />

soils (Oulehle et al., 2011; Lawrence et al., 2012).<br />

Nitrogen deposition<br />

Nitrogen deposition covers a wider geographical area than sulphur deposition. This is because the sources<br />

are more varied, including extensive agriculture fertilizer and animal waste application, biomass burning, and<br />

fossil fuel combustion (Figure 4.10c). Regions with deposition in excess of 20 kg N ha -1 yr -1 in 2001 include<br />

Western Europe, South Asia (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh) and eastern China (Vet et al., 2014). In addition,<br />

extensive areas with deposits of 4 kg N ha -1 yr -1 or more were found across North, Central and South America<br />

and parts of Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. By contrast, ‘natural’ deposition in un-impacted areas is as little<br />

as 0.5 kg N ha -1 yr -1 (Dentener et al., 2006). While both nitrogen and sulphur emissions related to fossil fuel<br />

combustion have declined across Europe, agricultural sources of nitrogen in the region are likely to stay<br />

constant in the near future (EEA, 2014). At the same time, overall global emissions are likely to increase<br />

(Galloway et al., 2008). Nitrogen deposition in China in the 2000s was similar to peaks in Europe during the<br />

1980s before Europe embarked on mitigation measures (Liu et al., 2013b).<br />

Deposition of nitrogen induces a ‘cascade’ of environmental effects, including acidification and<br />

eutrophication that can have both positive and negative effects on ecosystem services (Galloway et al.,<br />

2003). <strong>Soil</strong>s with low nitrogen content are most sensitive to eutrophication - typically Histosols, Cryosols and<br />

Podzols located in cold areas in northern countries such as northern Canada, Scandinavia and northern Russia<br />

(Bouwman et al., 2002; Rodríguez-Lado, Montanarella and Macías, 2007; Figure 4.10d). Excluding agricultural<br />

areas where nitrogen deposition is beneficial, 11 percent of the world’s natural land experiences nitrogen<br />

exceedances above 10 kg N ha -1 yr -1 (Dentener et al., 2006). In Europe, eutrophication has and will continue to<br />

impact a larger area than acidification (Rodríguez-Lado and Macias, 2005; EEA, 2014).<br />

Nitrogen fertilisation can increase tree growth (Magnani et al., 2007) and cause changes in plant species<br />

and diversity (Bobbink et al., 2010). This can in turn alter the amount and quality of litter inputs to soils, notably<br />

the C:N ratio and soil-root interactions (RoTAP, 2012). However, increased global terrestrial carbon sink can be<br />

largely offset by increased emissions of the greenhouse gases N 2<br />

O and CH 4<br />

(Liu and Greaver, 2009). Longterm<br />

changes caused by nitrogen deposition are uncertain as transport times vary between environmental<br />

systems. The only way to remove excess nitrogen is to convert it to an unreactive gas (Galloway et al., 2008).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

74


Figure 4.10 Global distribution of (a) atmospheric S deposition, (b) soil sensitivity to acidification, (c) atmospheric N deposition, and<br />

(d) soil carbon to nitrogen ratio (soils most sensitive to eutrophication have a high C:N ratio; eutrophication is caused by N). Source:<br />

Vet et al., 2014; Batjes, 2012; FAO, 2007.<br />

Atmospheric deposition data in (a) and (c) were provided by the World Data Centre for Precipitation<br />

Chemistry (http://wdcpc.org, 2014) and are also available in Vet et al. (2014). Data show the ensemble-mean<br />

values from the 21 global chemical transport models used by the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air<br />

Pollution (HTAP) (Dentener et al., 2006). Total wet and dry deposition values are presented for sulphur, oxidized<br />

and reduced nitrogen. <strong>Soil</strong> data in (b) and (d) were produced using the ISRIC-WISE derived soil properties (ver<br />

1.2) (Batjes, 2012) and the FAO Digital <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World.<br />

Trace element deposition<br />

Global trace element emissions and deposition are poorly understood in comparison to our understanding<br />

of emissions of sulphur and nitrogen. Emissions of trace elements are associated with combustion of fossil fuel<br />

(V, Ni, Hg, Se, Sn), traffic (Pb), insecticides (As), steel manufacture (Mn, Cr), and mining and smelting (As, Cu,<br />

Zn, Hg) (Mohammed, Kapri and Goel, 2011). In the United Kingdom, trace element deposition is responsible for<br />

25-85 percent of total trace element inputs to soils (Nicholson et al., 2003). In Europe, the area at risk from Cd,<br />

Hg and Pb deposition in 2000 was 0.34 percent, 77 percent and 42 percent respectively, although emissions are<br />

declining (Hettelingh et al., 2006). In China, 43-85 percent of total As, Cr, Hg, Ni and Pb inputs to agricultural<br />

soils originate from atmospheric deposition (Luo et al., 2009). In bioavailable form these elements have a toxic<br />

effect on soil organisms and plants, influencing the quality and quantity of plant inputs to soils and the rate of<br />

decomposition. Significantly, they can also bioaccumulate in the food chain. Activity of trace elements in soils<br />

will depend on the specific mobility of the element and this will be influenced by pH, Eh and the concentration<br />

of dissolved organic matter with complexing properties (Blaser et al., 2000). Some trace elements will persist<br />

for centuries as they are strongly bound to soil particles. However, they can become bioavailable, as observed<br />

in peatlands following drought-induced acidification, drainage and soil erosion (Tipping et al., 2003; Rothwell<br />

et al., 2005).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

75


4.4.3 | Knowledge gaps and research needs<br />

Atmospheric pollution is a global phenomenon impacting large areas of the land surface. Regional and<br />

global scale assessment relies on the use of simple models to: (i) upscale site-specific soil data, in some<br />

instances using soil databases collected as long ago as the 1970s; and (ii) estimate where soil sensitivity – the<br />

‘critical load’ − of a single pollutant is exceeded. There are few locations with long-term soil monitoring data,<br />

particularly in comparison to the data available on air, rain and surface water quality. Therefore, the actual<br />

global extent and magnitude of polluted soils are unclear. Essentially, we lack data at adequate scales to check<br />

the model outputs. A long-term global soil monitoring network is needed.<br />

While the direct impacts of sulphur, nitrogen and trace elements on inorganic soil chemical processes are<br />

generally well understood, many uncertainties still exist about pollutant impacts on biogeochemical cycling,<br />

particularly interactions between organic matter, plants and organisms in natural and semi-natural systems<br />

(Greaver et al., 2012). Process understanding is dominated by research in Europe and North America (e.g.<br />

Bobbink et al., 2010). Research is needed in other regions where soil properties and environmental conditions<br />

differ from the empirically studied areas in Europe and North America. Models need to be developed to<br />

examine the combined effects of air pollutants and their interactions with climate change and feedbacks on<br />

greenhouse gas balances and carbon storage (Spranger et al., 2008; RoTAP, 2012). Air quality, biodiversity and<br />

climate change polices all impact on soils. A more holistic approach to protecting the environment is needed,<br />

particularly as some climate change policies (e.g. biomass burning, carbon capture and storage) have potential<br />

to impact air quality and, therefore, soil functions (Reis et al., 2012; RoTAP, 2012; Aherne and Posch, 2013).<br />

References<br />

Abreu, M.M. & Magalhães, M.C.F. 2009. Phytostabilization of <strong>Soil</strong>s in Mining Areas. Case studies from<br />

Portugal. In L. Aachen, P. Eichmann, eds., <strong>Soil</strong> Remediation. pp 297-344. New York, Nova Science Publishers, Inc.<br />

Abreu, M.M., Batista, M. J., Magalhães, M.C.F. & Matos, J,X. 2010. Acid Mine Drainage in the Portuguese<br />

Iberian Pyrite Belt. In B.C. Robinson, ed. Mine drainage and Related problems. pp 71-118. New York, Nova Science<br />

Publishers, Inc. 275 pp.<br />

Aguilar, J., Dorronsoro, C., Fernández, E., Fernández, J., García, I., Martín, F. & Simón, M. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

pollution by a pyrite mine spill in Spain: evolution in time. Environmental Pollution, 132: 395-401.<br />

Aherne, J. & Posch, M. 2013. Impacts of nitrogen and sulphur deposition on forest ecosystem services in<br />

Canada. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5: 108–115.<br />

Alexander, A.B. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction on skid trails after selective logging in moist evergreen forest of<br />

Ghana. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 3(6): 262-264<br />

Alexandratos, J. & Bruinsma, J. 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. Rome, FAO.<br />

Amorim, M.J.B., Rombke, J. & Soares, A.M.V.M. 2005. Avoidance behavior of Enchytraeus albidus: Effects<br />

of Benomyl, Carbendazim, Phenmedipham and different soil types. Chemosphere 59: 501-510.<br />

Aslibekian, O. & Moles, R. 2003. Environmental risk assessment of metals contaminated soils at Silvermines<br />

abandoned mine site, Ireland. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 25: 247-266.<br />

Azcue, J.M. 1999. Environmental impacts of Mining Activities. Emphasis on Mitigation and Remedial<br />

Measures. Berlin, Springer. 300 pp.<br />

Bai, Z.G., Dent, D.L., Olsson, L. & Schaepman, M.E. 2008. Global assessment of land degradation<br />

and improvement. 1. Identification by remote sensing. Report 2008/01, ISRIC – World <strong>Soil</strong> Information,<br />

Wageningen.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

76


Bardgett, R.D. & van der Putten, W.H. 2014. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.<br />

Nature, 515: 505-511.<br />

Barman, R. Jain, A.K. & Liang, M. 2014b. Climate-driven uncertainties in terrestrial energy and water<br />

fluxes: a site-level to global scale analysis. Global Change Biology, 20(6): 1885–1900<br />

Barman, R., Jain, A.K. & Liang, M. 2014a. Climate-driven uncertainties in terrestrial gross primary<br />

production: a site-level to global scale analysis. Global Change Biology, 20(5): 1394–1411<br />

Batista, M.J., Abreu, M.M. & Serrano, M. 2007. Biogeochemistry in Neves-Corvo mining area, Iberian<br />

Pyrite belt, Portugal. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 92: 159-176.<br />

Batjes, N.H. 2012. ISRIC-WISE derived soil properties on a 5 by 5 arc-minutes global grid (ver. 1.2). Wageningen,<br />

ISRIC - World <strong>Soil</strong> Information. 52 pp.<br />

Baxter, J. & Cummings, S.P. 2008. The degradation of the herbicide bromoxynil and its impact on bacterial<br />

diversity in a top soil. J. Appl. Microbiol, 104: 1605-1616.<br />

Bender, J. & Weigel, H.J. 2011. Changes in atmospheric chemistry and crop health: A review. Agronomy for<br />

Sustainable Development, 31: 81–89.<br />

Berenguer, E., Ferreira, J., Gardner, T.A, Aragão, L.E.O.C., Camargo, P.B., Cerri, C.E., Durigan, M.,<br />

Oliveira Jr, R.C., Vieira, I.C.G. & Barlow, J. 2014. A large-scale field assessment of carbon stocks in humanmodified<br />

tropical forests. Global Change Biology, 20(12): 3713-3726<br />

Blaser, P., Zimmermann, S., Luster, J. & Shotyk, W. 2000. Critical examination of trace element enrichments<br />

and depletions in soils: As, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn in Swiss forest soils. The Science of the Total Environment, 249:<br />

257-280.<br />

Bobbink, R., Hicks, K., Galloway, J., Spranger, T., Alkemade, R., Ashmore, M., Bustamante, M., Cinderby,<br />

S., Davidson, E., Dentener, F., Emmett, B., Erisman, J.W., Fenn, M., Gilliam, F., Nordin, A., Pardo, L. & De<br />

Vries, W. 2010. Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: a synthesis.<br />

Ecological Applications, 20: 30–59.<br />

Boldt, T.S. & Jacobsen, C.S. 1998. Different toxic effects of the sulfonylurea herbicides metsulfuron methyl,<br />

chlorsulfuron and thifensulfuron methyl on fluorescent pseudomonads isolated from an agricultural soil.<br />

FEMS Microbiology Letter, 161: 29-35.<br />

Bondeau, A., Smith, P.C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W., Gerten, D., Lotze-Campen,<br />

H., Müller, C., Reichstein, M. & Smith, B. 2007. Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global<br />

terrestrial carbon balance. Global Change Biology, 13(3): 679–706.<br />

Bouwman, A.F., Vuuren, D.P., van Derwent, R.G. & Posch, M. 2002. A Global Analysis of Acidification and<br />

Eutrophication of Terrestrial Ecosystems. Water, Air, and <strong>Soil</strong> Pollution, 141: 349–382.<br />

Bouwman, L., van der Hoek, K., van Drecht, G. & Eickhout, B. 2006. World Livestock and Crop Production<br />

Systems, Land Use and Environment between 1970 and 2030. In F. Brouwer & B. A. McCarl, eds. Agriculture and<br />

Climate Beyond 2015. pp. 75–89. Netherlands, Springer. 310 pp.<br />

Bryan, J.E., Shearman, P.L., Asner, G.P., Knapp, D.E., Aoro, G. & Lokes, B. 2013. Extreme Differences in<br />

Forest Degradation in Borneo: Comparing Practices in Sarawak, Sabah, and Brunei. PLoS ONE, 8(7): e 69679.<br />

Bünemann, E.K., Schwenke, G.D. & Van Zwieten, L. 2006. Impact of agricultural inputs on soil organisms:<br />

a review. <strong>Soil</strong> Res., 44: 379-406.<br />

Calvo de Anta, R. & Macias, F. 2009. Remediation of <strong>Soil</strong>s contaminated with pyritic sludge from a<br />

mine spill in Aznalcóllar, Spain. In A. Faz, A.R. Mermut, J. M. Arocena & R. Ortiz, eds. Land Degradation and<br />

Rehabilitation. Dryland Ecosystems. pp. 295-310. Advances in Geoecology 40. Catena Verlag. 440 pp.<br />

Camps Arbestain, M., Barreal, M.E. & Macías, F. 1999. Relating sulphate sorption in forest soils to<br />

lithological classes, as defined to calculate critical loads of acidity. The Science of the Total Environment, 241: 181–<br />

195.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

77


Carpenter, S.R., Caraco, N.F., Correll, D.L., Howarth, R.W., Sharpley, A.N. & Smith, V.H. 1998. Nonpoint<br />

pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications, 8(3): 559–568.<br />

Cayuela, M.L., Sánchez-Monedero, M.A., Roig, A., Hanley, K., Enders, A. & Lehmann, J. 2013. Biochar<br />

and denitrification in soils: when, how much and why does biochar reduce N 2<br />

O emissions? Sci. Rep., 3: 1732.<br />

Cayuela, M.L., van Zwieten, L., Singh, B.P., Jeffery, S., Roig, A. & Sánchez-Monedero, M.A. 2014.<br />

Biochar’s role in mitigating soil nitrous oxide emissions: a review and meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems<br />

and Environment, 191: 5-16.<br />

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia, 143: 1–10.<br />

Comtea, I., Davidson, R., Lucotte, M., Carvalho, C.J.R., Oliveira, F.A., Silva, B.P. & Rousseaug, G. 2012.<br />

Physicochemical properties of soils in the Brazilian Amazon following fire-free land preparation and slashand-burn<br />

practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 156: 108–115.<br />

Conant, R.T. 2012. Grassland soil organic carbon stocks: status, opportunities, vulnerability. In R. Lal, K.<br />

Lorenz, R.F. Hüttl, B.U. Schneider & J. von Braun, eds. Recarbonization of the Biosphere. pp. 275-302. Dordrecht,<br />

Springer. 465 pp.<br />

Crowther, T.W., Maynard, D.S., Leff, J.W., Oldfield, E.E., McCulley, R.L., Fierer, N. & Bradford, M.A. 2014.<br />

Predicting the responsiveness of soil biodiversity to deforestation: a cross-biome study. Global Change Biology,<br />

20: 2983–2994.<br />

D’Odorico, P., Bhattachan, A., Davis, K.F., Ravi, S. & Runyan, C.W. 2013. Global desertification: drivers<br />

and feedbacks. Advances in Water <strong>Resources</strong>, 51: 326-344.<br />

Daniels, S.M., Evans, M.G., Agnew, C.T. & Allott, T.E.H. 2008. Sulphur leaching from headwater<br />

catchments in an eroded peatland, South Pennines, U.K. The Science of the total environment, 407: 481–496.<br />

De Deyn, G.B. & van der Putten, W.H. 2005. Linking aboveground and belowground diversity. Trends in<br />

Ecology & Evolution, 20: 625-633.<br />

De Klein, C., Novoa, R., Ogle, S., Smith, K., Rochette, P., Wirth, T., McConkey, B.G., Walsh, M., Mosier,<br />

A., Rypdal, K. & Williams, S. 2006. N 2<br />

O emissions from managed soils, and CO 2<br />

emissions from lime and<br />

urea application. In H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara & K. Tanabe, eds. IPCC Guidelines for National<br />

Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Vol. 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Chapter 11. pp. 1-54. Japan, IGES.<br />

De Silva, P.M., Pathiratne, A., van Straalen, N.M. & van Gestel, C.A. 2010. Chlorpyrifos causes decreased<br />

organic matter decomposition by suppressing earthworm and termite communities in tropical soil. Environ.<br />

Pollut, 158: 3041-3047.<br />

De, A., Bose, R., Kumar, A. & Mozumdar, S. 2014. Targeted delivery of Pesticides Using Biodegradable Polymeric<br />

Nanoparticles. SpringerBriefs in Molecular Science, pp. 5-6.<br />

Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S. & Courbois, V. 1999. Livestock to 2020. The next food<br />

revolution. Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion paper 28, International Food Policy Research<br />

Institute, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Livestock Research<br />

Institute. Washington, DC., IFPRI. 83 pp.<br />

Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Maestre, F.T., Gallardo, A., Bowker, M.A., Wallenstein, M.D., Quero, J.L.,<br />

Ochoa, V., Gozalo, B., García-Gómez, M., Soliveres, S., García-Palacios, P., Berdugo, M., Valencia, E.,<br />

Escolar, C., Arredondo, T., Barraza-Zepeda, C., Bran, D., Carreira, J.A., Chaieb, M., Conceição, A.A., Derak,<br />

M., Eldridge, D.J., Escudero, A., Espinosa, C.I., Gaitán, J., Gatica, M.G., Gómez-González, S., Guzman, E.,<br />

Gutiérrez, J.R., Florentino, A., Hepper, E., Hernández, R.M., Huber-Sannwald, E., Jankju, M., Liu, J., Mau,<br />

R.L., Miriti, M., Monerris, J., Naseri, K., Noumi, Z., Polo, V., Prina, A., Pucheta, E., Ramírez, E., Ramírez-<br />

Collantes, D.A., Romão, R., Tighe, M., Torres, D., Torres-Díaz, C., Ungar, E.D., Val, J., Wamiti, W., Wang,<br />

D. & Zaady, E. 2013. Decoupling of soil nutrient cycles as a function of aridity in global drylands. Nature, 502:<br />

672-676.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

78


Dentener, F., Drevet, J., Lamarque, J.F., Bey, I., Eickhout, B., Fiore, A.M., Hauglustaine, D., Horowitz,<br />

L.W., Krol, M., Kulshrestha, U.C., Lawrence, M., Galy-Lacaux, C., Rast, S., Shindell, D., Stevenson, D., Van<br />

Noije, T., Atherton, C., Bell, N., Bergman, D., Butler, T., Cofala, J., Collins, B., Doherty, R., Ellingsen, K.,<br />

Galloway, J., Gauss, M., Montanaro, V., Müller, J.F., Pitari, G., Rodriguez, J., Sanderson, M., Solmon, F.,<br />

Strahan, S., Schultz, M., Sudo, K., Szopa, S. & Wild, O. 2006. Nitrogen and sulfur deposition on regional and<br />

global scales: A multimodel evaluation. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 20.<br />

Dittmar, T., Rezende, C.E., Manecki, M., Niggemann, J., Ovalle, A.R.C., Stubbins, A. & Bernardes, M.C.<br />

2012. Continuous flux of dissolved black carbon from a vanished tropical forest biome. Nature Geoscience, 5:<br />

618-622.<br />

Don, A., Schumacher, J. & Freibauer, A. 2011. Impact of tropical land-use change on soil organic carbon<br />

stocks – a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 17: 1658–1670.<br />

Down, C.G. & Stocks, J. 1977. Environmental Impacts of Mining. London, Applied Science. 371 pp.<br />

Drude de Lacerda, L. 2003. Updating global Hg emissions from small-scale gold mining and assessing its<br />

environmental impacts. Environmental Geology, 43: 308-314.<br />

EEA. 2014. Effects of air pollution on European ecosystems. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency. 42 pp.<br />

Eijsackers, H., Beneke, P., Maboeta, M., Louw, J.P.E. & Reinecke, A.J. 2005. The implications of copper<br />

fungicide usage in vineyards for earthworm activity and resulting sustainable soil quality. Ecotoxicology and<br />

Environmental Safety, 62: 99-111.<br />

El-Masri, B., Barman, R., Meiyappan, P., Song, Y., Liang, M. & Jain. A. 2013. Carbon dynamics in the<br />

Amazonian basin: integration of eddy covariance and ecophysiological data with a land surface model. Agr.<br />

Forest Meteorol., 182-183: 156–167.<br />

Endlweber, K., Schadler, M. & Scheu, S. 2005. Effects of foliar and soil insecticide applications on the<br />

collembolan community of an early set-aside arable field. Applied <strong>Soil</strong> Ecology, 31: 136–146.<br />

Espinoza-Navarro, O. & Bustos-Obregón, E. 2005. Effect of malathion on the male reproductive organs of<br />

earthworms Eisenia foetida. Asian Journal of Andrology, 7: 97–101.<br />

European Union. 2012. Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. Publication<br />

Office of the European Union, Luxemburg. 65 pp.<br />

Evangelou, V.P. 1995. Pyrite oxidation and its control. CRC Press. 293 pp.<br />

Fader, M.M, Rost, S., Müller, C., Bondeau, A. & Gerten, D. 2010 Virtual water content of temperate<br />

cereals and maize: Present and potential future patterns. Journal of Hydrology, 384(3-4): 218–231.<br />

Fang, Y., Wang, X., Zhu, F., Wu, Z., Li, J., Zhong, L., Chen, D. & Yoh, M. 2013. Three-decade changes in<br />

chemical composition of precipitation in Guangzhou city, southern China: has precipitation recovered from<br />

acidification following sulphur dioxide emission control? Tellus B, 65..<br />

FAO. 2007. Digital <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World (DSMW). Rome, FAO. (Also available at http://www.fao.org/<br />

geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?id=14116 ).<br />

FAO, 2014b. World Reference Base for <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>. World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Reports # 106. FAO, Rome..<br />

FAO. 2010. Global Forest <strong>Resources</strong> Assessment 2010. FAO Forestry Paper #163. Rome, FAO..<br />

FAO. 2011. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) – Managing systems<br />

at risk. Rome, FAO & London, Earthscan..<br />

FAO. 2013. FAO statistical yearbook 2013. World Food and Agriculture. Rome, FAO..<br />

FAO. 2014a. The State of the <strong>World’s</strong> Forests 2014. Enhancing the socioeconomic benefits from forests. Rome,<br />

FAO..<br />

FAO/UNEP. 1999. Terminology for Integrated <strong>Resources</strong> Planning and Management. United Nations Environmental<br />

Programme. Rome, FAO & Kenya, Nairobi.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

79


Fernández Caliani, J.C. 2008. Una aproximación al conocimiento del impacto ambiental de la minería en<br />

la faja pirítica ibérica. MACLA, 10: 24-28..<br />

Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M. & O’Connell, C.<br />

2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369): 337–342..<br />

Früh, B., Becker, P., Deutschlnder, T., Hessel, J.D., Kossmann, M., Mieskes, I., Namyslo, J., Roos, M.,<br />

Sievers, U., Steigerwald, T., Turau, H. & Wienert, U. 2011. Estimation of climate change impacts on the urban<br />

heat load using an urban climate model and regional climate projections. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 50: 167-<br />

184..<br />

Galloway, J.N., Aber, J.D., Erisman, J.W., Seitzinger, S.P., Howarth, R.W., Cowling, E.B. & Cosby, B.J.<br />

2003. The Nitrogen Cascade. BioScience, 53: 341..<br />

Galloway, J.N., Townsend, A.R., Erisman, J.W., Betunda, M., Cai, Z., Freney, J.R., Martinelli, L.A.,<br />

Seitzinger, S.P. & Sutton, M.A. 2008. Transformation of the Nitrogen Cycle: Recent Trends, Questions, and<br />

Potential Solutions. Science, 320(5878): 889-892..<br />

Gauci, V., Matthews, E., Dise, N., Walter, B., Koch, D., Granberg, G. & Vile, M. 2004. Sulfur pollution<br />

suppression of the wetland methane source in the 20th and 21 st centuries. Proceedings of the National Academy of<br />

Sciences of the United States of America, 101: 12583–12587..<br />

Ghassemi, F., Jakeman A.J. & Nix, H.A. 1995. Salinisation of land and water resources: Human causes, extent,<br />

management and case studies. Australia, Canberra, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies. 562 pp..<br />

Gil, A., Macias, F., Monterroso, M.C. & Val, C. 1990. Influence of waste selection in the dump reclamation<br />

at Puentes mine. In A.K.M. Rainbow, ed. Reclamation, treatment and utilization of Coal Mining Wastes. pp. 203-<br />

208. Rotterdam, Balkema. 527 pp..<br />

Gleick, P.H. 2003. WATER USE. Annual Review of Environment and <strong>Resources</strong>, 28: 275-314...<br />

Goldberg, S. 2002. Competitive adsorption of arsenate and arsenite on oxides and clay minerals. <strong>Soil</strong> Science<br />

Society of America Journal, 66: 413-421..<br />

Grattan, J.P., Huxley, S.I. & Pyatt, F.B. 2003. Modern Bedouin exposures to copper contamination: an<br />

imperial legacy? Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 55: 108-115.<br />

Greaver, T.L., Sullivan, T.J., Herrick, J.D., Barber, M.C., Baron, J.S., Cosby, B.J., Deerhake, M.E., Dennis,<br />

R.L., Dubois, J.-J.B., Goodale, C.L., Herlihy, A.T., Lawrence, G.B., Liu, L., Lynch, J. & Novak, K.J. 2012.<br />

Ecological effects of nitrogen and sulfur air pollution in the US: what do we know? Frontiers in Ecology and the<br />

Environment, 10: 365–372..<br />

Grimalt, J.O., Ferrer, M. & McPherson, E. 1999. The mine tailing accident in Aznalcollar. The Science of the<br />

Total Environment, 242: 3-11..<br />

Guo, L. B. & Gifford, R. M. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change<br />

Biology, 8(4): 345–360..<br />

Haering, K.C., Daniels, W.L. & Galbraith, J.M. 2004. Appalachian mine soil morphology and properties:<br />

effects of weathering and mining method. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America Journal, 68: 1315-1325...<br />

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D.,<br />

Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O. & Townshend,<br />

J.R.G. 2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science, 342(6160): 850–853...<br />

Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Hugo Valin, H., Notenbaert, A., Rufino, M.C., Thornton, P.K., Blümmel, M.,<br />

Weiss, F., Grace, D. & Obersteiner, M. 2013. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas<br />

emissions from global livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110: 20888–20893..<br />

Hester, R.E. & Harrison, R.M. 2001. Assessment and Contamination of Contaminated Land. Royal Society of<br />

Chemistry. 164 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

80


Hettelingh, J.P., Sliggers, J., van het Bolcher, M., Denier van der Gon, H., Groenenberg, B.J., Ilyin,<br />

I., Reinds, G.J., Slootweg, J., Tranvnikov, O., Visschedijk, A. & de Vries, W. 2006. Heavy Metal Emissions,<br />

Depositions, Critical Loads and Exceedances in Europe. Den Haag, Netherlands..<br />

Heupel, K. 2002. Avoidance response of different collembolan species to Betanal. Eur. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Biol., 38: 343-<br />

346..<br />

Hooijer A., Page, S., Canadell, J.G., Silvius, M., Kwadijk, J., Wosten, H. & Jauhiainen, J. 2010. Current and<br />

future CO 2<br />

emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences, 7: 1505–1514.<br />

Hooke, R.L., Martín-Duque, J.F. & Pedraza, J. 2012. Land transformation by humans: a review. GSA Today,<br />

22(12): 4-10..<br />

Hutchinson, T.C. 1979. Copper contamination of ecosystems caused by smeller activities. In J.O. Nriagu, ed.<br />

Copper in the Environment. New York, John Wiley and Sons. 451 pp.<br />

Jain, A.K., Meiyappan, P., Song, Y., House, J. 2013. CO 2<br />

emissions from land-use change affected more by<br />

nitrogen cycle, than by the choice of land-cover data. Global Change Biology, 19: 2893–2906..<br />

Jones, C.D., McConnell, C., Coleman, K., Cox, P., Falloon, P., Jenkinson, D. & Powlson, D. 2005. Global<br />

climate change and soil carbon stocks; predictions from two contrasting models for the turnover of organic<br />

carbon in soil. Global Change Biology, 11: 154-166..<br />

Joosten, H. 2010. The Global Peatland CO 2<br />

Picture. Peatland status and drainage related emissions in all<br />

countries of the world. Ede, Wetlands International..<br />

Ju, X., Xing, G., Chen, X., Zhang, S., Zhang, L., Liu, X., Zhen, C., Yin, B., Christie, P., Zhu, Z. & Zhang, F.<br />

2009. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems.<br />

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(9): 3041–3046.<br />

Kaufman, Y.J., Tanre, D. & Boucher, O. 2002. A satellite view of aerosols in the climate system. Nature, 419:<br />

215-223..<br />

Keating, B.A., Herrero, M., Carberry, P.S., Gardner, J. & Cole, M.B. 2014. Food wedges: Framing the global<br />

food demand and supply challenge towards 2050. Global Food Security, 3: 125-132..<br />

Kelly, E.N., Schindler, D.W., Hodson, P. V, Short, J.W., Radmanovich, R. & Nielsen, C.C. 2010. Oil sands<br />

development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries.<br />

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(52): 22346-22351..<br />

Kelly, E.N., Schindler, D.W., Hodson, P.V., Short, J.W., Radmanovich, R. & Nielsen, C.C. 2010. Oil sands<br />

development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries.<br />

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 107(37): 16178–16183..<br />

Klein Goldewijk, K. & van Drecht, G., 2006. HYDE 3. Current and historical population and land cover. In<br />

A.F. Bouwman, T. Kram, K. Klein Goldewijk, eds. Integrated Modelling of Global Environmental Change. An overview<br />

of IMAGE 2.4. pp. 93-112. The Netherlands, Bilthoven, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)..<br />

Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Van Drecht, G. & De Vos, M. 2011. The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database<br />

of human-induced global land-use change over the past 12,000 years. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr,20(1): 73–86..<br />

Krug, E.C. & Frink, C.R. 1983. Acid Rain on Acid <strong>Soil</strong>: A New Perspective. Science, 221: 520–525..<br />

Kuylenstierna, J.C., Rodhe, H., Cinderby, S. & Hicks, K. 2001. Acidification in developing countries:<br />

ecosystem sensitivity and the critical load approach on a global scale. Ambio, 30: 20–8.<br />

Latham, J. Cumani, R., Rosati, I. & Bloise, M. 2014. Global Land Cover SHARE (GLC-SHARE) database Beta-<br />

Release Version 1.0. Rome, FAO.<br />

Laudon, H., Dillon, P.J., Eimers, M.C., Semkin, R.G. & Jeffries, D.S. 2004. Climate-induced episodic<br />

acidification of streams in central ontario. Environmental science & technology, 38: 6009–60015..<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

81


Lawrence, G.B., Shortle, W.C., David, M.B., Smith, K.T., Warby, R.A.F. & Lapenis, A.G. 2012. Early<br />

Indications of <strong>Soil</strong> Recovery from Acidic Deposition in U.S. Red Spruce Forests. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America<br />

Journal, 76: 1407.<br />

Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. 2015. Biochar for Environmental Management. Science and Technology, 2nd edition.<br />

New York, Routledge.<br />

Lehmann, J., Skjemstad, J.O., Sohi, S., Carter, J., Barson, M., Falloon, P., Coleman, K., Woodbury, P.<br />

& Krull, E. 2008 Australian climate-carbon cycle feedback reduced by soil black carbon. Nature Geoscience, 1:<br />

832–835..<br />

Liu, L. & Greaver, T.L. 2009. A review of nitrogen enrichment effects on three biogenic GHGs: the CO 2<br />

sink<br />

may be largely offset by stimulated N 2<br />

O and CH 4<br />

emission. Ecology letters, 12: 1103–1117..<br />

Liu, L., Xu, X., Zhuang, D., Chen, X. & Li, S. 2013a. Changes in the Potential Multiple Cropping System in<br />

Response to Climate Change in China from 1960–2010. PLoS ONE, 8(12): e 80990.<br />

Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Han, W., Tang, A., Shen, J., Cui, Z., Vitousek, P., Erisman, J.W., Goulding, K., Christie,<br />

P., Fangmeier, A. & Zhang, F. 2013b. Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature, 494: 459–462<br />

Liu, Z.H., Jiang, l.H., Zhang, W.J., Zheng, F.L., Wang, M. & Lin, H.T. 2008. Evolution of fertilization rate<br />

and variation of soil nutrient contents in greenhouse vegetable cultivation in Shandong. Pedologica Sinica,<br />

45(2): 296-303. [in Chinese with English abstract]<br />

López, M., Gónzalez, I. & Romero, A. 2008. Trace elements contamination of agricultural soils affected by<br />

sulphide exploitation (Iberian Pyrite Belt, SW Spain). Environmental Geology, 54: 805-818.<br />

López-Merino, L., Pena-Chocarro, L., Ruíz-Alonso, M., López-Saez, J.A. & Sánchez-Palencia, F.J. 2010.<br />

Beyond nature: the management of a productive cultural landscape in Las Medulas area (El Bierzo, Leon,<br />

Spain) during pre-Roman and Roman times. Plant Biosystems, 144: 909-923.<br />

López-Pamo, E., Barettino, D., Anton-Pacheco, C., Ortiz, G., Arranz, J.C., Gumiel, J.C., Martínez-Pledel,<br />

B., Aparicio, M. & Montouto, O. 1999. The extent of the Aznalcollar pyritic sludge spill and its effects on soils.<br />

The Science of the Total Environment, 242: 57-88.<br />

Lu, X., Mao, Q., Gilliam, F.S., Luo, Y. & Mo, J. 2014. Nitrogen deposition contributes to soil acidification in<br />

tropical ecosystems. Global change biology, 20(12): 3790–3801<br />

Lundström, U.S., Bain, D.C., Taylor, A.F.S. & van Hees, P.A.W. 2003. Effects of Acidification and its<br />

Mitigation with Lime and Wood Ash on Forest <strong>Soil</strong> Processes: A Review. Water, Air and <strong>Soil</strong> Pollution: Focus, 3:<br />

5–28<br />

Luo, L., Ma, Y., Zhang, S., Wei, D. & Zhu, Y.-G. 2009. An inventory of trace element input to agricultural<br />

soils in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 2524-2530<br />

MA. 2005. Current State and Trends. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, D.C., Island Press. 839 pp.<br />

Macías, F. & Camps Arbestain, M. 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration in a changing global environment.<br />

Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 15(6): 511-529.<br />

Macías, F. 1996. Los suelos de mina: Su recuperación. In J. Aguilar, A. Martinez Raya & A. Roca Roca, eds.<br />

Evaluación y Manejo de Suelos. pp. 227-243. Granada, CL, Junta de Andalucía.<br />

Macías-García, F., Camps Arbestain, M. & Macías, F. 2009. Utilización de Tecnosoles derivados de residuos<br />

en procesos de restauración de suelos de la mina Touro. In Minería Sostenible. pp. 651-661. A Coruña, Cámara<br />

Oficial Mineira de Galicia.<br />

Macías-García, F., Fontán, L., Otero, X.L., Pérez Llaguno, C., Camps Arbestain, M. & Macías, F. 2009.<br />

Recuperación de aguas ácidas de la mina Touro mediante sistemas integrados de barreras reactivas con<br />

diferentes Tecnosoles y humedales. In Minería Sostenible. pp. 963-973. A Coruña, Cámara Oficial Mineira de<br />

Galicia<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

82


Magnani, F., Mencuccini, M., Borghetti, M., Berbigier, P., Berninger, F., Delzon, S., Grelle, A., Hari,<br />

P., Jarvis, P.G., Kolari, P., Kowalski, A.S., Lankreijer, H., Law, B.E., Lindroth, A., Loustau, D., Manca, G.,<br />

Moncrieff, J.B., Rayment, M., Tedeschi, V., Valentini, R. & Grace, J. 2007. The human footprint in the carbon<br />

cycle of temperate and boreal forests. Nature, 447: 848–850<br />

Marfenina, O.E., Ivanova, A.E., Kislova, E.E. & Sacharov, D.S. 2008. The mycological properties of<br />

medieval culture layers as a form of soil “biological memory” about urbanization. Journal of <strong>Soil</strong>s and Sediments,<br />

8(5): 340-348.<br />

Martínez-Cortizas, A., García-Rodeja, E., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C., Weiss, D.<br />

& Cheburkin, A. 2002. Atmospheric Pb deposition in Spain during the last 4600 years recorded by two<br />

ombrotrophic peat bogs and implications for the use of peat as archive. Sci. Total Environ., 292: 33-44.<br />

Matson, P.A., Parton, W.J., Power, A.G. & Swift, M.J. 1997. Agricultural Intensification and Ecosystem<br />

Properties. Science, 277(5325): 504–509.<br />

McSherry, M.E. & Ritchie, M.E. 2013. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Global<br />

Change Biology, 19: 1347–1357<br />

Meersmans, J., van Wesemael, B., De Ridder, F., Fallas Dotti, M., De Baets, S. & van Molle, M. 2009.<br />

Changes in organic carbon distribution with depth in agricultural soils in northern Belgium, 1960-1990. Glob.<br />

Change Biol., 15: 2739–2750<br />

Meuser, H. 2010. Contaminated Urban <strong>Soil</strong>s. Springer Science & Buseness media. 340 pp.<br />

Mighall, T.M., Abrahams, P.W., Grattan, J.P., Hayes, D., Timberlake, S. & Forsyth, S. 2002. Geochemical<br />

evidence for atmospheric pollution derived from prehistoric copper mining at Copa Hill, Cwmystwyth, mid-<br />

Wales, UK. Sci. Total Environ., 292: 69-80.<br />

Mohammed, A.S., Kapri, A. & Goel, R. 2011. Heavy metal pollution: source, impact and remedies. In<br />

S.K. Mohammad, R. Goel & J. Musarrat, eds. Biomanagement of metal-contaminated soils. pp. 1-28. New York,<br />

Springer. 556 pp<br />

Monteith, D.T., Stoddard, J.L., Evans, C.D., de Wit, H.A., Forsius, M., Høgåsen, T., Wilander, A.,<br />

Skjelkvåle, B.L., Jeffries, D.S., Vuorenmaa, J., Keller, B., Kopácek, J. & Vesely, J. 2007. Dissolved organic<br />

carbon trends resulting from changes in atmospheric deposition chemistry. Nature, 450: 537–540.<br />

Monterroso, C., Alvarez, E. & Macías, F. 1994. Speciation and Solubility Control of Al and Fe in Minesoil<br />

Solutions. The Science of the Total Environment, 158: 31-43.<br />

Monterroso, C., Alvarez, E., Fernández-Marcos, M.L. & Macías, F. 1999. Geochemistry of aluminium and<br />

iron in mine soils from As Pontes, Galicia (NW Spain). Water, Air & <strong>Soil</strong> Pollution, 110: 81-102.<br />

Monterroso, C., Macías, F., Gil Bueno, A. & Val Caballero, C. 1998. Evaluation of the land reclamation<br />

project at the As Pontes Mine (NW Spain) in relation to the suitability of the soil for plant growth. Land<br />

Degradation & Development, 9: 441-451.<br />

Moore, J.N. & Luoma, S.N. 1990. Hazardous wastes from large-scale metal extraction. Environ. Sci. Technol.,<br />

24: 1278-1285<br />

Munshower, F.F. 1977. Cadmium accumulation in plants and animals on polluted and non-polluted<br />

grasslands. J. Environ. Qual., 6: 411-413<br />

Murty, D., Kirschbaum, M.U.F., McMurtrie, R.E. & McGilvray, H. 2002. Does conversion of forest to<br />

agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? a review of the literatur. Global Change Biology, 8: 105–123.<br />

Nachtergaele, F., Bruinsma, J., Valbo-Jorgensen, J. & Bartley, D. 2011. Anticipated trend in the use of global<br />

land and water resources. SOLAW Background Thematic Report TR 01. Rome, FAO<br />

Navarro-Campos, C., Pekas, A., Moraza, M.L., Aguilar, A. & Garcia-Mari, F. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong>-dwelling predatory<br />

mites in citrus: Their potential as natural enemies of thrips with special reference to Pezothrips kellyanus<br />

(Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Biological Control, 63: 201-209<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

83


Nave, L.E., Vance, E.D., Swanston, C.W. & Curtis, P.S. 2011. Fire effects on temperate forest soil C and N<br />

storage. Ecological Applications, 21(4): 1189–1201.<br />

Neel, C., Bril, H., Courtin-Nomade, A. & Dutreuil, J-P. 2003. Factors affecting natural development of soil<br />

on 35-year-old sulphide-rich mine tailings. Geoderma, 111: 1-20<br />

Nicholson, F.A., Smith, S.R., Alloway, B.J., Carlton-Smith, C. & Chambers, B.J. 2003. An inventory of<br />

heavy metals inputs to agricultural soils in England and Wales. The Science of the total environment, 311: 205–19<br />

Nilsson, J. & Grennfelt, P. 1988. Critical Loads for Sulphur and Nitrogen. Copenhagen, Nordic Council of<br />

Ministers.<br />

Nordstrom, D.K. & Alpers, C.N. 1999. Geochemistry of acid mine waters. In G. Plumlee & M. Logsdon eds.<br />

Environmental geochemistry of mineral deposits. Vol. 6A. pp. 133-156. Rev. Econ. Geol. 580 pp.<br />

Nordstrom, D.K. & Southam, G. 1997. Geomicrobiology of sulphide mineral oxidation. In J.F. Banfield & K.H.<br />

Nealson, eds. Geomicrobiology: interactions between microbes and minerals. Vol. 35. Reviews in Mineralogy. pp.<br />

361-390. Washington, DC, Mineralogical Society of America. 448 pp.<br />

Olander, L.O., Bustamante, M.C.C., Asner, G.P., Telles, E. & do Prado, Z.A. 2005. Surface soil changes<br />

following selective logging in an Eastern Amazon forest. Earth Interactions, 9(4): 1-19.<br />

Otero, X.L., Ferreira, T.O., Vidal, P., Macias, F. & Chesworth, W. 2008. Thionic or sulfidic soils. In W.<br />

Chesworth, ed. Encyclopedia of <strong>Soil</strong> Science. pp. 777-781. Springer. 902 pp<br />

Oulehle, F., Evans, C.D., Hofmeister, J., Krejci, R., Tahovska, K., Persson, T., Cudlin, P. & Hruska, J. 2011.<br />

Major changes in forest carbon and nitrogen cycling caused by declining sulphur deposition. Global Change<br />

Biology, 17: 3115–3129<br />

Panda, S. & Sahu, S.K. 2004. Recovery of acetylcholine esterase activity of Drawida willsi (Oligochaeta)<br />

following application of three pesticides to soil. Chemosphere, 5: 283–290.<br />

Pandey, S. & Singh, D.K. 2004. Total bacterial and fungal population after chlorpyrifos and quinalphos<br />

treatments in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) soil. Chemosphere, 55(2): 197–205<br />

Paustian, K., Babcock, B.A., Hatfield, J., Kling, C.L., Lal, R., McCarl, B.A., McLaughlin, S., Mosier, A.R.,<br />

Post, W.M., Rice, C.W., Robertson, G.P., Rosenberg, N.J., Rosenzweig, C., Schlesinger, W.H. & Zilberman,<br />

D. 2004. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Challenges and Opportunities for Agriculture. Task Force<br />

Report No. 141. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology<br />

Perez, C.A., Carmona, M.R., Fariña, J.M. & Armesto, J.J. 2009. Selective logging of lowland evergreen<br />

rainforests in Chiloe´ Island, Chile: Effects of changing tree species composition on soil nitrogen<br />

transformations. Forest Ecology and Management, 258: 1660–1668<br />

Pittman, K., Hansen, M.C., Becker-Reshef I., Potapov, P.V. & Justice, C.O. 2010. Estimating global<br />

cropland extent with Multi-year MODIS data. Remot. Sens., 2(7): 1844–1863.<br />

Poeplau, C., Don, A., Vesterdal, L., Leifeld, J., Wesemael, B., Schumacher, J. & Gensior, A. 2011. Temporal<br />

dynamics of soil organic carbon after land-use change in the temperate zone – carbon response functions as a<br />

model approach. Global Change Biology, 17: 2415–2427<br />

Portmann, F., Siebert, S. & Döll, P. 2010. MIRCA 2000 - Global Monthly Irrigated and Rainfed Crop Areas<br />

around the year 2000: A new high-resolution data set for agricultural and hydrological modelling. Global<br />

Biological Cycles.24(GB 1011): 1-24<br />

Prokop, G., Jobstmann, H. & Schöbauer, A. 2011: Overview on best practices for limiting soil sealing and<br />

mitigating its effects in EU-27. Environment Agency Austria. European Communities. 231 pp.<br />

Pugh, T.A.M., Arneth, A., Olin, S., Ahlström, A., Arvanitis, A., Bayer, A.D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Lindeskog,<br />

M. & Schurgers, G. 2015. Agricultural management substantially enhances land-use change emissions.<br />

[Submitted]<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

84


Pugh, T.A.M., Arneth, A., Olin, S., Ahlström, A., Arvanitis, A., Bayer, A., Lindeskog, M., Klein Goldewijk,<br />

K. & Schurgers, G. 2014. Accounting for land management notably reduces projections of the terrestrial<br />

carbon sink. [submitted<br />

Ramankutty, N., Evan, A.T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J.A. 2008. Farming the planet: 1.Geographic distribution<br />

of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22(GB 1003)<br />

Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A. & Olejniczak, N.J. 2002. People on the land: Changes in global population and<br />

croplands during the 20th century. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 31(3): 251-257<br />

Ravi, S., Breshears, D.D., Huxman, T.E. & D’Odorico, P. 2010. Land degradation in drylands: Interactions<br />

among hydrologic–aeolian erosion and vegetation dynamics. Geomorphology, 116: 236–245<br />

Ray, D.K. & Foley, J.A. 2013. Increasing global crop harvest frequency: recent trends and future directions.<br />

Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 044041.<br />

Reis, S., Grennfelt, P., Klimont, Z., Amann, M., Apsimon, H., Hettelingh, J.-P., Holland, M., LeGall, A.-<br />

C., Maas, R., Posch, M., Spranger, T., Sutton, M.A. & Williams, M. 2012. From acid rain to climate change.<br />

Science, 338(6111): 1153–1154<br />

Reuss, J.O. & Johnson, D.W. 1986. Acid Deposition and the Acidification of <strong>Soil</strong>s and Waters. New York, Springer<br />

Verlag. 119 pp<br />

Ribeiro Filho, A.A., Adams, C. & Sereni Murrieta, R.S. 2013. The impacts of shifting cultivation on tropical<br />

forest soil: a review. 2013. Bol. Mus. Para. Emílio Goeldi. Cienc. Hum., Belém, 8(3): 693-727<br />

Rodríguez-Lado, L. & Macías, F. 2005. Calculation and mapping of critical loads of sulphur and nitrogen<br />

for forest soils of Galicia (NW Spain). Science of the Total environment, 336: 760-7<br />

Rodríguez-Lado, L., Montanarella L. & Macías F. 2007. Evaluation of the sensitivity of European <strong>Soil</strong>s to<br />

the deposition of acid compounds: different approaches provide different results. Water, <strong>Soil</strong> and Air Pollution,<br />

185: 293-303<br />

Römbke, J., Garcia, M.V. & Scheffczyk, A. 2007. Effects of the fungicide benomyl on earthworms in<br />

laboratory tests under tropical and temperate conditions. Archives of Environmental Contamination and<br />

Toxicology. 53: 590–598.<br />

RoTAP. 2012. Review of Transboundary Air Pollution ( RoTAP ): Acidification, Eutrophication, Ground Level Ozone<br />

and Heavy Metals in the UK. Edinburgh, Contract Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural<br />

Affairs. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology<br />

Rothwell, J.J., Robinson, S.G., Evans, M.G., Yang, J. & Allott, T.E.H. 2005. Heavy metal release by peat<br />

erosion in the Peak District, southern Pennines, UK. Hydrological Processes, 19: 2973–2989<br />

Royal Society of London. 2009. Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global<br />

agriculture. London, UK<br />

Salomons, W. 1995. Environmental impact of metals derived from mining activities: Process, prediction,<br />

prevention. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 52: 5-23.<br />

Schaphoff, S., Heyder, U., Ostberg, S., Gerten, D., Heinke, J. & Lucht, W. 2013. Contribution of permafrost<br />

soils to the global carbon budget. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1): 014026<br />

Sencindiver, J.C. & Ammons, J.T. 2000. Minesoil genesis and classification. In R.I. Barnhisel, R.G.<br />

Darmody & W.L. Daniels, eds. Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. Agronomy monograph no. 41. pp. 595–613.<br />

Madison: ASA, CSSA, SSSA<br />

Sengupta, M. 1993. Environmental impacts of Mining. Monitoring, Restoration and Control. Lewis Publishers,<br />

CRC Pres<br />

Seré, C. & Steinfeld, H. 1996. World livestock production systems. Current status, issues and trends. Animal<br />

Production and Health Paper 127. Rome, FAO.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

85


Shi, S., Zhang, W., Zhang, P., Yu, Y. & Ding, F.A. 2013. Synthesis of change in deep soil organic carbon stores<br />

with afforestation of agricultural soils. Forest Ecology and Management, 296: 53–63.<br />

Shotyk, W., Weiss, D., Appleby, P.G., Cheburkin, A.K., Frei, R., Gloor, M., Kramers, J.D., Reese, S. & van<br />

der Knaap, W.O. 1998. History of atmospheric lead deposition since 12,370 14C yr BP from a peat bog, Jura<br />

Mountains, Switzerland. Science, 281: 1635-1640.<br />

Siebert, S. & Doll, P. 2010. Quantifying blue and green virtual ¨ water contents in global crop production as<br />

well as potential production losses without irrigation. J. Hydrol., 384(3–4): 198-217.<br />

Siebielec, G., Lazar, S., Kaufmann, C. & Jaensch, S. 2010. Handbook for measures enhancing soil function<br />

performance and compensating soil loss during urbanization process. Urban SMS – <strong>Soil</strong> Management Strategy<br />

project, 37 pp.<br />

Smil, V. 2000. Phosphorus in the environment: natural flows and human interferences. Annual Review of<br />

Energy and the Environment, 25(1): 53–88.<br />

Smith, B., Prentice, I.C. & Sykes, M.T. 2001. Representation of vegetation dynamics in the modelling of<br />

terrestrial ecosystems: comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space. Global Ecology<br />

& Biogeography, 10: 621-637<br />

Smith, P. 2004. Carbon sequestration in croplands: the potential in Europe and the global context. European<br />

Journal of Agronomy, 20(3): 229–236.<br />

Smith, P. 2005. An overview of the permanence of soil organic carbon stocks: influence of direct humaninduced,<br />

indirect and natural effects. European Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 56: 673-680<br />

Smith, P., House, J.I., Bustamante, M., Sobocká, J., Harper, R., Pan, G., West, P., Clark, J., Adhya, T.,<br />

Rumpel, C., Paustian, K., Kuikman, P., Cotrufo, M.F., Elliott, J.A., McDowell, R., Griffiths, R.I., Asakawa,<br />

S., Bondeau, A., Jain, A.K., Meersmens, J. & Pugh, T. (in press) Global Change Pressures on <strong>Soil</strong>s from Land<br />

Use and Management. Global Change Biology. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13068<br />

Sombroek, W.G., Nachtergaele, F.O. & Hebel, A. 1993. Amounts, dynamics and sequestering of carbon in<br />

tropical and subtropical soils. Ambio, 22: 417-426<br />

Spranger, T., Hettelingh, J.-P., Slootweg, J. & Posch, M. 2008. Modelling and mapping long-term risks due<br />

to reactive nitrogen effects: an overview of LRTAP convention activities. Environmental Pollution, 154: 482–487<br />

State Bureau of Statistics- China. 2005. 50 Years Rural Statistics of New China. China, Beijing, China<br />

Statistics Press<br />

Suttie, J.M., Reynolds, S.G. & Batello, C. 2005. Grasslands of the World. FAO Plant production and protection<br />

series No. 34. Rome, FAO<br />

Tian, H.Q., Lu, C.Q., Melillo, J., Ren, R., Huang,Y., Xu, X.F., Liu, M.L., Zhang, Z., Chen, G. S. & Pan, S.F.<br />

2012. Food benefit and climate warming potential of nitrogen fertilizer uses in China. Environm Res. Letters, 7:<br />

044020<br />

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and<br />

intensive production practices. Nature, 418(6898): 671–677<br />

Tipping, E., Smith, E., Lawlor, A., Hughes, S. & Stevens, P. 2003. Predicting the release of metals from<br />

ombrotrophic peat due to drought-induced acidification. Environmental Pollution, 123: 239–253<br />

Tsiafouli, M.A., Thebault, E., Sgardelis, S.P., de Ruiter, P.C., van der Putten, W.H., Birkhofer, K., Hemerik,<br />

L., de Vries, F.T., Bardgett, R.D., Brady, M.V., Bjornlund, L., Jørgensen, H.B., Christensen S., D’ Hertefeldt,<br />

T., Hotes S., Hol, W.H.G., Frouz, J., Liiri, M., Mortimer, S.R., Setälä H., Tzanopoulos, J., Uteseny K., Pižl, V.,<br />

Stary, J., Wolters, V., & Hedlund, K. 2015. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Global<br />

Change Biology, 21(2): 973-985<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

86


Van Aardenne, J.A., Dentener, F.J., Olivier, J.G.J., Klein Goldewijk, C.G.M. & Lelieveld, J. 2001. A<br />

1°×1° resolution data set of historical anthropogenic trace gas emissions for the period 1890-1990. Global<br />

Biogeochemical Cycles, 15: 909–928<br />

Van Zwieten, L., Rust, J. Kingston, T., Merrington, G. & Morris, S. 2004. Influence of copper fungicide<br />

residues on occurrence of earthworms in avocado orchard soils. The Science of the Total Environment, 329: 29-41.<br />

Vega, F.A., Covelo, E.F., Andrade, M.L. & Marcet, P. 2004. Relationships between heavy metals content<br />

and soil properties in mine soils. Analytica Chimica Acta., 524: 141-150.<br />

Veiga, M.M., Nunes, D., Klein, B., Shandro, J.A., Colon Velasquez, P. & Sousa R.N. 2009. Mill leaching: a<br />

viable substitute for mercury amalgamation in the artisanal gold mining sector? Journal of Cleaner Production,<br />

17: 1373-1381.<br />

Venterea, R.T., Maharjan, B. & Dolan, M.S. 2011. Fertilizer Source and Tillage Effects on Yield-Scaled<br />

Nitrous Oxide Emissions in a Corn Cropping System. J. Environ. Qual., 40:1521–1531.<br />

Vet, R., Artz, R.S., Carou, S., Shaw, M., Ro, C.-U., Aas, W., Baker, A., Bowersox, V.C., Dentener,<br />

F., Galy-Lacaux, C., Hou, A., Pienaar, J.J., Gillett, R., Forti, M.C., Gromov, S., Hara, H., Khodzher, T.,<br />

Mahowald, N.M., Nickovic, S., Rao, P.S.P. & Reid, N.W. 2014. A global assessment of precipitation chemistry<br />

and deposition of sulfur, nitrogen, sea salt, base cations, organic acids, acidity and pH, and phosphorus.<br />

Atmospheric Environment, 93: 3–10<br />

Villela, D.M., Nascimento, M.T., Aragão, L.E.O.C. & Gama, D.M. 2006. Effect of selective logging on forest<br />

structure and nutrient cycling in a seasonally dry Brazilian Atlantic forest. Journal of Biogeography, 33: 506–516.<br />

Weber, J.L. 2010. Land cover classification in the revised SEEA. Land Cover Classification for Land Cover<br />

Accounting, LG/15/9, position paper drafted by Jean-Louis Weber (EEA), 15th Meeting of the London Group on<br />

Environmental Accounting, Copenhagen, 4 October 2010<br />

We i, X., Shao, M., Gale, W. & Li, L. 2014. Global pattern of soil carbon losses due to the conversion of forests<br />

to agricultural land. Scientific Reports 4: 4062<br />

West, P. C., Gerber, J. S., Engstrom, P. M., Mueller, N. D., Brauman, K. A., Carlson, K. M., Cassidy, E.C.<br />

Johnston, M., MacDonald, G.K., Ray, D.K. & Siebert, S. 2014. Leverage points for improving global food<br />

security and the environment. Science, 345(6194): 325–328.<br />

Whitfield, C.J., Aherne, J., Watmough, S.A. & Mcdonald, M. 2010. Estimating the sensitivity of forest soils<br />

to acid deposition in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta. Journal of Liminology, 69: 201–208.<br />

Williams, M. 2001. Arsenic in mine waters: an international study. Environmental Geology, 40: 267-278<br />

World Bank. 2008. Agriculture for Development. World Development Report 2008.Washington, DC, World<br />

Bank.<br />

Yasmin, S. & D’Souza, D. 2010. Effects of pesticides on the growth and reproduction of earthworm: A<br />

review. Appl. Environ. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 2010(678360): 1-9.<br />

Zhang ,Y., Xu, M., Chen, H. & Adams, J. 2009. Global pattern of NPP to GPP ratio derived from MODIS data:<br />

effects of ecosystem type, geographical location and climate. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 18: 280–290<br />

Zhou, S.-P., Duan, C.-Q., Fu, H., Chen, Y.-H., Wang, X.-H. & Yu, Z.-F. 2007. Toxicity assessment for<br />

chlorpyrifos-contaminated soil with three different earthworm test methods. Journal of Environmental Sciences,<br />

19: 854–858.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

87


Global <strong>Soil</strong> Change<br />

Drivers, Status and Trends<br />

Coordinating Lead Authors:<br />

André Bationo (Burkina Faso), Srimathie Indraratne (Sri Lanka)<br />

Contributing Authors:<br />

Sayed Alavi (ITPS/Iran), Abdullah Alshankiti (ITPS/Saudi Arabia), Dominique Arrouays (ITPS/France), Charles<br />

Bielders (United States), Keith Bristow (Australia), Marta Camps Arbestain (ITPS/New Zealand), Lucrezia<br />

Caon (Italy), Brent Clothier (New Zealand), Tandra Fraser (United States), Ciro Gardi (Italy), Gerard Govers<br />

(Belgium), Roland Hiederer (Germany), Jeroen Husing (TSBF-CIAT), Joyce Jefwa (TSBF-CIAT), Shawntine Lai<br />

(United States/Taiwan, Province of China), Rattan Lal (United States), John P. Lamers (Germany), Dar-Yuan<br />

Lee (Taiwan, Province of China), Fredah Maina (Kenya), Luca Montanarella (ITPS/EC), Joseph Mung'atu (TSBF-<br />

CIAT), Freddy Nachtergaele (Belgium), Peter F. Okoth (TSBF-CIAT), Asad Qureshi (ICBA), Shabbir Shahid<br />

(ICBA), Manuela Ravina da Silva (Sweden), Justin Sheffield (United Kingdom), Tran Tien (Vietnam), Kristof Van<br />

Oost (Belgium), Boris Vrscaj (Slovenia), Diana Wall (United States), Boaz Waswa (Kenya), Jeewika Weerahewa<br />

(Sri Lanka), Kazuyuki Yagi (ITPS/Japan), Ted Zobeck (United States).<br />

Reviewing Authors:<br />

Dominique Arrouays (ITPS/France), Richard Bardgett (United Kingdom), Marta Camps Arbestain (ITPS/New<br />

Zealand), Tandra Fraser (Canada), Ciro Gardi (Italy), Neil McKenzie (ITPS/Australia), Luca Montanarella (ITPS/<br />

EC), Dan Pennock (ITPS/Canada) and Diana Wall (United States).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report <strong>Soil</strong>s and Humans<br />

88


5 | Drivers of global soil change<br />

Drivers in general comprise the factors that bring about socio-economic and environmental changes. They<br />

operate at various spatial and temporal levels in society. They differ from one region to another, and within and<br />

between nations. Drivers are diverse in nature and they include: demographics; economic factors; scientific<br />

and technological innovation; markets and trade; wealth distribution; institutional and socio-political<br />

frameworks; value systems; and climate and climate change (UNEP, 2007; IAASTD, 2009). Drivers have an<br />

impact on natural resources including soil services and functions, with impacts on biodiversity, environmental<br />

health and ultimately human well-being. Globalization has particularly affected these drivers, leading to an<br />

increase in human mobility with social, economic and environmental implications. Patterns of settlement<br />

and consumption result in pressures on ecosystem services, including those provided by soils. Rural-urban<br />

migration and associated livelihood changes contribute to changing patterns of energy use and shifts in diet<br />

– for example, towards meat – which can intensify pressures on land and soils in producing areas (UNEP,<br />

2012). In addition, climate change may have significant impacts on soil resources through changes in water<br />

availability and soil moisture, as well as through sea level rise (IPCC, 2014b).<br />

5.1 | Population growth and urbanization<br />

5.1.1 | Population dynamics<br />

Changing global population trends<br />

The world population of 7.2 billion in mid-2013 is projected to increase by almost one billion by 2025. By<br />

2050 it is expected to reach 9.6 billion, and to rise to 10.9 billion by 2100 (UN, 2014). The principal factor in this<br />

continual rise is the rapid increase in the population of developing countries, in particular in Africa, where the<br />

population is projected to increase from the current 1.1 billion to reach 2.4 billion by 2050 (Table 5.1.). Many<br />

countries of Sub-Saharan Africa are still experiencing fast population growth with high fertility rates. Other<br />

countries with similar trends include India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines and the United States. By 2030<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

89


India’s population is expected to surpass China’s, to become the most populous country in the world. Nigeria’s<br />

population is expected to surpass the United States population in 2045 to become the world’s third most<br />

populous country. Nigeria’s population is likely to rival that of China by the end of the century (Table 5.2). Over<br />

the period 2013–2100, eight countries are expected to account for over half of the world’s projected population<br />

increase: Nigeria, India, the United Republic of Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Uganda,<br />

Ethiopia and the United States of America. On the other hand, Europe’s population is projected to decline,<br />

since fertility rates are far below the level for replacement of population in the long run. As fertility decreases<br />

and life expectancy rises, population ageing is a challenge for Europe (UN, 2014). Other developing countries<br />

with young populations but lower fertility (e.g. China, Brazil and India) are also likely to face challenges of an<br />

ageing society by the end of this century (Gerland et al., 2014).<br />

Region<br />

Area<br />

2013<br />

Percent<br />

Density<br />

2050<br />

% of world<br />

% Change<br />

(millions of<br />

Population<br />

of world<br />

(p/km²)<br />

population.<br />

pop.<br />

2013-2050<br />

km²)<br />

(millions)<br />

population<br />

(projected)<br />

Asia 31.9 4 298 60.0 135 5 164 54.1 20<br />

Africa 31.0 1 110 15.5 36 2 393 25.1 115<br />

Europe 23.0 742 10.4 32 709 7.4 -4<br />

LAC 20.5 617 8.6 30 782 8.2 27<br />

North<br />

America<br />

21.8 355 5.0 16 446 4.7 26<br />

Oceania 8.6 38 0.5 4 57 0.6 48<br />

World 136.8 7 162 100.0 52 9 551 100 33<br />

Table 5.1 World population by region<br />

Country<br />

Population<br />

Country<br />

Population<br />

Country<br />

Projected<br />

Country<br />

Proj. Popul.<br />

in 1950<br />

in 2013<br />

Population<br />

2100<br />

in 2050<br />

China 544 China 1 386 India 1 620 India 1 547<br />

India 376 India 1 252 China 1 385 China 1 086<br />

United<br />

States<br />

158<br />

United<br />

States<br />

320 Nigeria 440 Nigeria 914<br />

Russian<br />

Federation<br />

103 Indonesia 250<br />

United<br />

States<br />

401<br />

United<br />

States<br />

462<br />

Japan 82 Brazil 200 Indonesia 321 Indonesia 315<br />

Indonesia 73 Pakistan 182 Pakistan 271 Tanzania 276<br />

Germany 70 Nigeria 174 Brazil 231 Pakistan 263<br />

Brazil 54 Bangladesh 157 Bangladesh 202<br />

Dem. Rep of<br />

Congo<br />

262<br />

United<br />

Kingdom<br />

51<br />

Russian<br />

Federation<br />

143 Ethiopia 188 Ethiopia 243<br />

Italy 46 Japan 127 Philippines 157 Uganda 205<br />

Table 5.2 The ten most populous countries 1950, 2013, 2050 and 2100 (population in millions). Source: United Nations, 2014.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

90


5.1.2 | Urbanization<br />

In tandem with the rate of population increase is the rising rate of urbanization. According to the United<br />

Nations, by 2014 more people were living in urban areas (54 percent) than in rural areas. The urbanization<br />

trend is expected to continue in all regions, and by 2050, 66 percent of the world’s population is projected to<br />

be urban. Today some of the most urbanized regions are Northern America (82 percent), Latin America and<br />

the Caribbean (80 percent) and Europe (73 percent). However, Africa and Asia are now the fastest urbanizing<br />

regions, with the share of the population urbanized expected to rise from today’s 40 and 48 percent<br />

respectively to 56 and 64 percent by 2050. Three countries together are expected to account for 37 percent of<br />

the growth of the world’s urban population between 2014 and 2050: India (adding 404 million), China (adding<br />

292 million) and Nigeria (adding 212 million). Whereas in the past mega-cities were located in more developed<br />

regions, today’s large cities are principally found in lower income countries. Since 1990 the number of these<br />

mega-cities has nearly tripled globally; and by 2030, the world is projected to have 41 global agglomerations,<br />

housing more than 10 million inhabitants each. In developing countries, the competition between demand for<br />

agricultural land and the needs of growing cities is a mounting challenge (Jones et al., 2013).<br />

The rural population globally is now close to 3.4 billion but is expected to decline to 3.2 billion by 2050.<br />

Africa and Asia are home to nearly 90 percent of the world’s rural population. India has the world’s largest<br />

rural population (857 million), followed by China (635 million). Rural/urban migration continues to feed urban<br />

growth, causing environmental changes including effects on land use and soils. Policy and poverty also drive<br />

the threats to land and soils. Many rural poor live under regimes of weak land policy and insecure tenure<br />

systems. They often farm marginal lands of low agricultural productivity, typically employing traditional<br />

farming methods. This may aggravate soil degradation and biodiversity decline, with resulting yield losses<br />

and food insecurity (Jones et al., 2013; Barbier, 2013). In addition, land grabs may lead to eviction of farming<br />

families, for whom rural to urban migration may be the only option, so accelerating the pace of urbanization<br />

(Holdinghausen, 2015).<br />

5.2 | Education, cultural values and social equity<br />

Education influences decisions regarding land use and land management. Farmers’ decisions result from<br />

many factors, including incentives, access to capital and risk management, but also from knowledge and<br />

level of education, all of which may affect land use and management practices (MA, 2005). Land use and<br />

management is dependent on the sum total of all decisions taken by individual farmers of different education<br />

and gender groups in a community (IAASTD, 2009).<br />

Women play a key role in agriculture. They represent 43 percent of the agricultural labour force world-wide,<br />

ranging from around 20 percent in Latin America to 50 percent in parts of Africa and Asia (FAO, 2011b). Women<br />

are responsible for half of the world’s food production, providing between 60 and 80 percent of the food in<br />

most developing countries (World Bank/FAO/IFAD, 2009). However, evidence shows that women still own<br />

less land and have smaller landholdings with generally poor soil quality. Improving women’s access to land<br />

and secure tenure can have direct impacts on farm productivity and in the long run improve household welfare<br />

(FAO, 2013). FAO’s Gender and Land Rights Database (2010) suggests that less than one quarter of agricultural<br />

land holdings in developing countries are operated by women. Latin America and the Caribbean have the<br />

largest mean share of female agricultural land holders, exceeding 25 percent in Chile, Ecuador and Panama.<br />

In North Africa and West Asia, female landholders represent fewer than five percent of the owners. In sub-<br />

Saharan Africa the average rate is 15 percent, although there are wide variations within the region, from less<br />

than five percent in Mali to over 30 percent in Botswana, Cape Verde and Malawi (Figure 5.1).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

91


Percentage of female landholders<br />

> 29 22.3 - 29<br />

15.7 - 22.3 9 - 15.7 < 9 No data<br />

Figure 5.1 Percentage of female landholders around the world. Source: FAO, 2010.<br />

5.3 | Marketing land<br />

Today land is used more intensively than ever. The expansion of markets, rising population, and economic<br />

development and higher incomes have pushed up demand for land for both agriculture and for settlements<br />

and so driven unprecedented land use change (Section 4.1, this volume). The most dramatic changes have been<br />

in reduction in forest cover, in expansion and intensification of cropland, and in urbanization (UNEP, 2007). In<br />

agriculture, production of crops and livestock products for markets is fundamental to the economies of many<br />

countries. One new segment of market-driven production is biofuels, where incentives have strengthened as<br />

a result of higher and volatile oil prices and because a number of countries have introduced renewable energy<br />

promotion policies (Rulli et al., 2013). North America is leading global biofuel production, with 48 percent<br />

of the global market. The second largest producer of biofuels is Brazil, producing 24 percent of the world’s<br />

biofuels (OECD/FAO, 2011). The growth of biofuels production is driving an increase in deforestation and other<br />

land use changes.<br />

It is widely accepted by economists that when land markets function in an efficient manner, the resulting<br />

land use patterns provide the highest possible benefits to the society. However, empirical research findings<br />

reveal that the functioning of land markets in many developing countries is inefficient and the resulting land<br />

use patterns are sub-optimal (Pinstrup-Anderson and Watson II, 2011). Amongst the causes of inefficiencies<br />

the following have been cited: lack of well-defined property rights (Allen, 1991; Alston, Libecap and Schneider,<br />

1995; Besley, 1995); higher bargaining power exercised by different groups of buyers (Sengupta, 1997; Ghebru<br />

and Holden, 2012); non-existence or under-functioning of insurance markets to absorb risk and uncertainties in<br />

the natural environment (such as climate change) (Dayton-Johnson, 2006; Auffret, 2003); and environmental<br />

externalities like soil erosion.<br />

Land grabbing - large scale land acquisitions - started initially in response to the 2007-2008 increase in food<br />

prices. Since then the phenomenon has intensified (IMF, 2008). Foreign states and companies and national<br />

investors, often with the support of the national government, see land as an attractive asset in order to meet<br />

the demands of food supply and energy. Experience in Africa, Eastern Europe, South America and South and<br />

Southeast Asia has shown that in an unregulated environment this ‘land grab’ can lead to the displacement<br />

of local farmers (Rulli et al., 2013). Since fertile land is a limited resource, competition for it may lead to a rise<br />

in poverty, violence and social unrest in countries with weak regulatory systems or power imbalances (Nolte<br />

and Ostermeier, 2015).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

92


Large areas of arable land have been bought or leased in recent years, mainly in developing countries (Figure<br />

5.2). According to the Land Matrix Global Observatory database, since the year 2000 over 1 000 land deals<br />

involving foreign investors have been struck, covering 39 million ha, while another 200 deals cover 16 million<br />

ha. The main driver of large land-scale acquisitions continues to be agricultural production, with 40 percent<br />

of deals for food crop production and livestock farming, followed by agrofuels as the second most important<br />

driver with 190 deals, and forestry projects which have increased by 50 percent (Land Matrix Newsletter, 2014).<br />

Other acquisitions have been for urban expansion, mining, infrastructure projects and tourism (Nolte and<br />

Ostermeier, 2015).<br />

Figure 5.2 Major land deals occurring between countries in 2012. Source: <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas, 2015/Rulli et al., 2013.<br />

In addition to these commercial land transactions, policy responses for climate change adaptation and<br />

mitigation have led to market-based approaches which attach a value to ecosystem services. In this context,<br />

there is the allocation of land for environmental ends, for example, offsetting emissions in the industrialized<br />

North by protecting forests in the South. These approaches in practice have sometimes required curtailment<br />

of customary or community access rights to forest and water. In other cases, these approaches have<br />

encouraged the shift of smallholder labour from subsistence farming and cash crop production to carbon<br />

sequestration (UNEP, 2012). A number of projects focusing on soil health and carbon sequestration in Africa<br />

have aimed to benefit individual farmers and at the same time to mitigate climate change. These pioneering<br />

projects have faced implementation challenges, including high unit costs, small land sizes, and weak land<br />

tenure rights. In addition, the incentive framework has been weakened by the small size of the cash payments<br />

the projects can offer for carbon sequestration, due to the low value of carbon credits and periodic market<br />

volatility in international voluntary carbon markets. Nevertheless, the non-carbon benefits gained from the<br />

projects, such as improved agricultural productivity through sustainable land management and soil health<br />

and strengthening of community solidarity, are important results to be prioritized in future projects (Shames,<br />

2013).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

93


5.4 | Economic growth<br />

Economic growth and urbanization generate immense benefits to humankind but also contribute<br />

to unsustainable consumption patterns. They may lead to increased levels of emissions from mining,<br />

manufacturing, sewage, energy and transport and to the consequent release of persistent pollutants to land,<br />

air and water (UNEP, 2012). By 2050 the population around the globe is expected to be generally wealthier and<br />

more urbanized, resulting in an increase and shift in consumption and food demand and consequently in a rise<br />

in pollution risk. In developing economies, livestock production is already increasing at a rapid rate as a result<br />

of structural change in diets and consumption. FAO predicts that the total demand for animal products will<br />

increase at more than double the rate of increase in demand for food of vegetable origin, such as cereals (FAO,<br />

2011a). This will lead to the expansion of land dedicated to livestock, both pasture and feed production. The<br />

largest expansion is predicted in the tropics, particularly in South America and Africa where vast areas of tropical<br />

forests, semi-arid lands, savannah, grassland and wetland ecosystems could be exploited for livestock - with<br />

potentially devastating environmental results (Laurance, Sayer and Cassman, 2014). In developing countries,<br />

difficult decisions on the trade-offs between preserving natural ecosystems and economic development will<br />

be required. In any case, it is likely that agricultural expansion and biofuel production will continue to trigger<br />

deforestation, and consequently soil degradation, pollution of land and water and increase in greenhouse gas<br />

emissions (FAO, 2003; Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012).<br />

Despite improvements in income growth in many countries, poverty and access to food remain problematic.<br />

According to FAO (2014), an estimated 842 million people around the world are currently undernourished.<br />

The 2007-2008, 2010 and 2012 price hikes in commodity markets evidenced how price shocks can trigger<br />

prolonged crises leading to food insecurity amongst the most vulnerable (FAO, 2011b). Global agendas such<br />

as those stated in the Sustainable Development Goals and the Post-2015 Agenda argue that environmental<br />

stewardship and sustainable management of natural resources provide opportunities to decrease inequality<br />

while increasing production of goods and services. However, this is a complicated agenda, as links between<br />

human well-being and natural resources, including soils, are influenced by a host of factors, including<br />

economic wealth, trade, technology, gender, education etc. Turning these lofty themes into real policies and<br />

programs to reduce poverty equitably and sustainably remains the key development challenge for the coming<br />

decades (UNEP, 2007).<br />

5.5 | War and civil strife<br />

In the course of history, many conflicts over fertile land have occurred. Until the twentieth century, most of<br />

these conflicts were local and had relatively little impact on the soils themselves. However, modern warfare<br />

makes use of non-degradable weapons of destruction and of chemicals that may remain in the affected soils<br />

for centuries after the conflict. The impacts of war and civil strife on the environment in general, and on soils<br />

in particular, are both direct physical impacts and indirect socio-economic impacts.<br />

Direct physical impacts of war on the soil resource include weapons and bombs remaining in the soil,<br />

the destruction of structures with consequent terrain deformation, heavy military transport that results in<br />

compaction, and chemical spraying that leads to contamination of both soils and groundwater. Socioeconomic<br />

impacts of war include local desertification and displacement of large populations of refugees towards safe<br />

regions, resulting in pressure on the environment and soils in the receiving sites (Owona, 2008).<br />

Extensive areas in the world are still affected by remnants of past and present war events. Especially affected<br />

are zones where land mines have been buried (Box 5.1), making these soils unsuitable for any exploitation<br />

and provisioning of services. There are approximately 110 million mines and other unexploded ordnance (UXO)<br />

scattered in sixty-four countries on all continents, remnants of wars from the early twentieth century to the<br />

present (Kobayashi, A., 2013). Africa alone has 37 million landmines in at least 19 countries. Angola is by far the<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

94


most affected zone with 15 million landmines and an amputee population of 70 000, the highest rate in the<br />

world. The problem persists despite campaigns to raise awareness, including the International Campaign to<br />

Ban Landmines (ICBL), which was awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. Removal of mines is proceeding, but at<br />

a glacial pace due to the danger, the cost (US$300 to US$1 000 per mine removed), and lack of international<br />

agreement on priorities.<br />

Box 5.1 | Minefields<br />

Minefields are one of the main constraints to the development of rural areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina<br />

(BIH), where large tracts (ca. 4 000 km 2 ) of agricultural land and forest areas cannot be used because<br />

they remain mined after the war that ended two decades ago (ICBL, 2002). BIH is the most mine-affected<br />

country in Europe with an estimated one million mines (mostly antipersonnel) remaining in the soil, and<br />

only 60 percent of which are located (Bolton 2003; Mitchell, 2004). This affects about 1.3 million people,<br />

roughly one third of the population. At current rates of de-mining, it will take several generations before<br />

rural areas are again safe.<br />

The displacement of people as a result of wars and conflicts has also created severe environmental and soil<br />

problems (Box 5.2).<br />

Box 5.2 | Migration/Refugee Camps<br />

Acholiland in northern Uganda has suffered from persistent insecurity since the mid -1 980s. The massive<br />

disruption, dislocation and displacement and suffering of the people in the region are well-known. As a<br />

way of protecting the local people, the government placed most inhabitants of those districts in camps<br />

popularly referred to as Internally Displaced Peoples (IDP) camps. As a result, land has been abandoned<br />

and farming and other socio-economic activities are only possible near the protected camps in a restricted<br />

radius not exceeding seven kilometres. War creates refugees, leaves government and environmental<br />

agencies impaired or destroyed, and substitutes short-term survival for longer-term environmental<br />

considerations. This means that ecosystems continue to suffer even after the fighting has stopped<br />

(Owona, 2008). The Uganda analysis shows that the creation of 157 IDP camps has significantly affected<br />

the environment in terms of deforestation (140 km 2 ), soil erosion, habitat destruction and pollution<br />

(Owona, 2008).<br />

Often war results in a combination of negative effects on soils. These may include soil compaction, soil<br />

contamination, soil sealing and enhanced wind erosion and dust fall out (Box 5.3).<br />

Box 5.3 | Combined effects of war and strife on soils.<br />

During the 1991 Gulf War in Iraq and Kuwait, there were massive impacts on the environment, resulting<br />

from heavy vehicle movements, hundreds of oil well fires, numerous oil lakes and spill-outs (Stephens and<br />

Matson, 1993; El-Baz and Makharita, 1994; El-Gamily, 2007). The desert ecosystem was severely damaged<br />

by the war: the rate of sand dune movement increased while in addition, new sand sheets and sand dunes<br />

were formed in several areas where there had been no sheets or dunes previously (Misak et al., 2002; Misak,<br />

Al-Ajmi and Al-Enezi, 2009). The building of many fortifications exposed huge amounts of fine particles to<br />

wind erosion Off-site impacts included an increase in the rates of sand transport and dust fallout (Misak,<br />

Al-Ajmi and Al-Enezi, 2009). The damage remains years afterwards below the surface.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

95


5.6 | Climate change<br />

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report reveals that the globally-averaged combined land and ocean surface<br />

temperature data show a linear trend of global warming due to increases in anthropogenic emissions of<br />

greenhouse gases of 0.85°C (90 percent uncertainty intervals of 0.65 to 1.06°C). Human influence has been<br />

detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions<br />

in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. Continued emission<br />

of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate<br />

system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems<br />

(IPCC, 2014a).<br />

Climate change will have significant impacts on soil resources and food production in both irrigated and<br />

rainfed agriculture across the globe. Changes in water availability due to changes in the quantity and pattern<br />

of precipitation will be a critical factor (Turral, Burke and Faurès, 2011). Also, higher temperatures, particularly<br />

in arid conditions, entail a higher evaporative demand. Where there is sufficient soil moisture, for example in<br />

irrigated areas, this could lead to soil salinization if land or farm water management, or irrigation scheduling<br />

or drainage are inadequate. The amount of water stored in the soil is fundamentally important to agriculture<br />

and is an influence on the rate of actual evaporation, groundwater recharge, and generation of runoff. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

moisture contents directly simulated by global climate models give an indication of possible directions of<br />

change (IPCC, 2014b). For example, using the HadCM 2<br />

climate model, Gregory, Mitchell and Brady (1997) show<br />

that a rise in greenhouse gas concentrations is associated with reduced soil moisture in Northern Hemisphere<br />

mid-latitude summers. This results from higher winter and spring evaporation caused by higher temperatures<br />

and reduced snow cover, and from lower rainfall inputs during summer.<br />

The local effects of climate change on soil moisture, however, will vary not only with the degree of climate<br />

change but also with soil characteristics (IPCC, 2014b). The water-holding capacity of soil will affect possible<br />

changes in soil moisture deficits; the lower the capacity, the greater the sensitivity to climate change. Climate<br />

change also may affect soil characteristics, perhaps through changes in waterlogging or cracking, which in<br />

turn may affect soil moisture storage properties. Infiltration capacity and water-holding capacity of many<br />

soils are influenced by the frequency and intensity of freezing. Boix-Fayos et al. (1998), for example, show that<br />

infiltration and water-holding capacity of soils on limestone are greater with increased frost activity. From<br />

this, they infer that increased temperatures could lead to increased surface or shallow runoff. Komescu, Erkan<br />

and Oz (1998) assess the implications of climate change for soil moisture availability in southeast Turkey,<br />

finding substantial reductions in availability during summer.<br />

The probable effects on soil characteristics of a gradual eustatic rise in sea-level will vary from place to place<br />

depending on a number of local and external factors, and interactions between them (Brammer and Brinkman,<br />

1990). In principle, a rising sea level would tend to erode and move back existing coastlines. In coastal lowlands<br />

which are insufficiently defended by sediment supply or embankments, tidal flooding by saline water will tend<br />

to penetrate further inland than at present, extending the area of perennially or seasonally saline soils.<br />

Climate change such as uncharacteristic droughts or rainfall and flooding have detrimental influences on<br />

soil microorganisms, changing the natural growing conditions for a region (Gschwendtner, 2014).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> formation is strongly dependent on environmental conditions of both the atmosphere and the<br />

lithosphere. <strong>Soil</strong> temperature is an important factor in this physical, chemical and biological process. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

temperature is also an important parameter for plant growth. For example, excessive high temperature is<br />

harmful to roots and causes lesions of stems, while extreme low temperatures impede intake of nutrients.<br />

Extreme low and high soil temperatures also influence the soil microbial population and the rate of organic<br />

matter decomposition. Recent studies have shown that soil temperature is one of the main climate factors<br />

that influence CO 2<br />

emission. High soil temperatures accelerate soil respiration and thus increase CO 2<br />

emission<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

96


(Brito et al., 2005). This has implications for the landscape and for land use. On convex slopes and hilltops,<br />

emission is greater than in foothills, where temperatures are normally lower. <strong>Soil</strong> surface wetness and canopy<br />

cover strongly influence the soil’s energy balance and soil temperature, whereas variation in soil porosity and<br />

soil thermal conductivity have little effect on soil temperature (Luo, Loomis and Hsiao, 1992). The various ways<br />

to calculate soil temperature and its trends are discussed in Alavipanah (2006) and Alavipanah et al. (2007).<br />

References<br />

Alavipanah, S.K. 2006. Thermal Remote Sensing and Its Application in the Earth Sciences. Iran, Tehran, Tehran<br />

University Press. 522 pp.<br />

Alavipanah, S.K., Saradjian, M. Savaghebi, G.R. Komaki, C.B. Moghimi, E. & Reyhan, M.K. 2007. Land<br />

surface temperature in the Yardang region of Lut Desert (Iran) based on field measurements and Landsat<br />

thermal data. J. Agric. Sci., 9: 287–303.<br />

Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Working<br />

paper No. 12-03. Rome, FAO<br />

Allen, D.W. 1991. Homesteading and Property Rights; or, How the West Was Really Won. Journal of Law and<br />

Economics, 34: 1-23<br />

Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D. & Schneider, R. 1995. Property Rights and the Preconditions for Markets: The<br />

Case of the Amazon Frontier. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151(1): 89-111<br />

Auffret, P. 2003. Catastrophe Insurance Market in the Caribbean Region: Market Failures and Recommendations for<br />

Public Sector Interventions. Policy Research Working Paper No. 2963. Washington, DC, World Bank<br />

Barbier, E.B. 2013. Structural Change, Dualism and Economic Development: The Role of the Vulnerable Poor<br />

on Marginal Lands. Washington, DC, World Bank<br />

Besley, T. 1995. Property rights and investment incentives: Theory and evidence from Ghana. Journal of<br />

Political Economy, 103(5): 903-937.<br />

Boix-Fayos, C., Calvo-Cases, A., Imeson, A.C., Soriano-Soto, M.D. & Tiemessen, I.R. 1998. Spatial and<br />

short-term temporal variations in runoff, soil aggregation and other soil properties along a Mediterranean<br />

climatological gradient. Catena, 33: 123–138<br />

Bolton, M. 2003. Mine actions in Bosnia’s special district: a case study. Journal of Mine Action, 7 (2)<br />

Brammer, H. & Brinkman, R. 1990. Changes in soil resources in response to a gradually rising sea-level. In<br />

H.W. Scharpenseel, M. Schomaker & A. Ayoub, eds. <strong>Soil</strong>s on a Warmer Earth. pp. 145-156. Elsevier Ltd<br />

Brito, L.F., La Scala Jr, N., Merques Jr, J. & Pereira, G.T. 2005. Variabilidade temporal da emissão de CO 2<br />

do solo e sua relação com a temperatura do solo em diferentes posições na paisgem em área cultivada com<br />

cana-de açúcar. In Simpósio sobre Plantio direto e Meio ambiente. Seqüestro de carbono e qualidade da agua. pp. 210-<br />

212. Anais. Foz do Iguaçu<br />

Dayton-Johnson, J. 2006. Natural disaster and vulnerability. Policy brief No. 29. OECD<br />

El Baz, F. & Mekharta, R.M. 1994. The Gulf War and the Environment. Amsterdam, Gordon and Breach<br />

El Gamily, H. 2007. Utilization of multi-dates LAndsat-TM data to detect and quantify the environmental<br />

damages in the southeastern region of Kuwait from 1990 to 1991. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 28(8):<br />

1773-1788<br />

FAO. 2003. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030: An FAO Perspective. In J. Bruinsma, ed. UK, Earthscan.<br />

FAO. 2010. Gender and Land rights Database. (Also available at http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights/home/en/)<br />

FAO. 2011a. World Livestock 2011 – Livestock in food security. Rome, FAO<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

97


FAO. 2011b. The Role of women in Agriculture. ESA Working Paper No. 11- 02, Agricultural Economics Division,<br />

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, FAO. 48 pp<br />

FAO. 2013. FAO Policy on Gender Equality: Attaining Food Security Goals in Agriculture and Rural Development.<br />

Rome, FAO<br />

Gerland, P., Raftery, A.E. (co-first authors); Ševčíková, H., Li, N., Gu, D., Spoorenberg, T., Alkema, L.,<br />

Fosdick, B.K., Chunn, J.L., Lalic, N., Bay, G., Buettner, T., Heilig, G.K. & Wilmoth, J. 2014. World Population<br />

Stabilization Unlikely This Century. Science, 346: 234-237<br />

Ghebru, H.H. & Holden, S.T. 2012. Reverse share-tenancy and marshallian inefficiency: bargaining power of<br />

landowners and the sharecropper’s productivity. International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE)<br />

Triennial Conference, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil<br />

Gregory, J.M., Mitchell, J.F.B. & Brady A.J. 1997. Summer drought in northern midlatitudes in a timedependent<br />

CO 2<br />

climate experiment. Journal of Climate, 10: 662–686<br />

Gschwendtner, S., Tejedor, J., Bimueller, C., Dannenmann, M., Knabner, I.K. & Schloter M. 2014.<br />

Climate change induces shifts in abundance and activity pattern of bacteria and archaea catalysing major<br />

transformation steps in nitrogen turnover in a soil from a mid-European beech forest. PLoS ONE, 9(12): e 114278.<br />

Holdinghausen, H. 2015. Big Business: Fighting back against foreign acquisitions. In Heinrich Böll<br />

Foundation, ed. <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas 2015- Facts and Figures about earth, land and fields. pp. 42-43. Institute for Advanced<br />

Sustainability Studies (IASS).<br />

IAASTD. 2009. Agriculture at as crossroad. International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and<br />

technology for development. Global Report. Washington, DC, Island Press.<br />

ICBL. 2002. Bosnia Herzegovina Landmine Monitor Report 2002. International Campaign to Ban Landmines.<br />

IMF. 2008. Food and Fuel Prices, Recent Developments, Macroeconomic Impact and Policy responses. Washington,<br />

DC, International Monetary Fund.<br />

IPCC. 2014a. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth<br />

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Switzerland, Geneva, IPCC. 151 pp<br />

IPCC. 2014b. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.<br />

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate<br />

Change. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press & USA, New York. 1132 pp.<br />

Jones, A., Breuning-Madsen, H., Brossard, M., Dampha, A., Deckers, J., Dewitte, O., Gallali, T., Hallett,<br />

S., Jones, R., Kilasara, M., Le Roux, P., Micheli, E., Montanarella, L., Spaargaren, O., Thiombiano, L.,<br />

Van Ranst, E., Yemefack, M. & Zougmore, R. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas of Africa. Luxembourg, European Commission,<br />

Publications Office of the European Union. 176 pp<br />

Kobayashi, A. (ed.) 2013. Geographies of Peace and Armed Conflict. Routledge. 248 pp<br />

Komescu, A.U., Erkan, A. & Oz, S. 1998. Possible impacts of climate change on soil moisture availability<br />

in the Southeast Anatolia Development Project Region (GAP): an analysis from an agricultural drought<br />

perspective. Climatic Change, 40: 519–545<br />

Land Matrix Newsletter. Land Matrix Newsletter. October 2014. (Also available at https://www.landmatrix.<br />

org)<br />

Laurance, W.F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. 2013. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature.<br />

Trends in Ecology & Evolution, S 0169-5347(13): 00292-9.<br />

Laurance, W.F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K.G. 2014. Agricultural expansion and its impact on tropical nature.<br />

Trends in Ecol. Evol., 29: 107-116<br />

Luo, Y., Loomis, R.S. & Hsiao, T.C. 1992. Simulation of soil temperature in crops. Agricultural and Forest<br />

Meteorology, 61(1): 23-38<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

98


MA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.<br />

Washington, DC, Island Press<br />

Misak, R., Al-Ajmi, D. & Al-Enezi, A. 2009. War-Induced <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation, Depletion, and Destruction (The<br />

Case of Ground Fortifications in the Terrestrial Environment of Kuwait). In T.A., Kassim, & D., Barceló, eds.<br />

Environmental Consequences of War and Aftermath pp. 125-139. Springer Berlin Heidelberg<br />

Misak, R.F., Al-Awadhi, J.M., Omar, S.A. & Shahid, S.A. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation in Kabd area, southwestern<br />

Kuwait City. Land degradation & development, 13(5): 403-415<br />

Mitchell, S.K. 2004. Death, disability, displaced persons and development. The case of landmines in Bosnia<br />

and Herzegovina. World Development, 32(12): 2105-2120<br />

Nolte, K. & Ostermeier, M. 2015. Land Investments: A new type of territorial expansion. In Heinrich Böll<br />

Foundation, ed. <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas 2015- Facts and Figures about earth, land and fields. pp. 38-39. Institute for Advanced<br />

Sustainability Studies (IASS).<br />

OECD/FAO. 2011. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020. OECD Publishing & FAO.<br />

Owona, J.C. 2008. Land degradation and internally displaced person’s camps in Pader District—Northern Uganda.<br />

Pader Pader District Local Government. (Also available at http://www.unulrt.is/static/fellows/document/joel.pdf<br />

Pinstrup-Andersen, P. & Watson II, D.D. 2011. Food Policy for Developing Countries: The Role of Government in<br />

Global, National, and Local Food Systems. Cornell University Press.<br />

Rulli, M.C., Saviori, A. & D’Odorico, P. 2013. Global land and water grabbing, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110(3):<br />

892-897<br />

Sengupta, K. 1997. Limited liability, moral hazard and share tenancy. Journal of Development Economics,<br />

52: 393-407<br />

Shames, S. 2013. How can small-scale farmers benefit from carbon markets? CCAFS Policy Brief no. 8. Copenhagen,<br />

Denmark, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Atlas. 2015. <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas: Facts and Figures about earth, land and fields. Berlin, Institute for Advanced<br />

Sustainability Studies,Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung<br />

Stephens, G. & Matson, M. 1993. Monitoring the Persian Gulf War with NOAA AVHRR data. International<br />

Journal of Remote Sensing, 14 (7): 1423-2<br />

Turral, H., Burke, J. & Faurès, J.-M. 2011. Climate change, water and food security. FAO Water Report 36, Rome,<br />

FAO<br />

UNEP. 2007. Global Environmental Outlook, GEO 4. Nairobi & New York, UNEP.<br />

UNEP. 2012. Global Environmental Outlook: Fifth Edition. Nairobi & New York, UNEP.<br />

United Nations. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. Department of Economic<br />

and Social Affairs, Population Division, ST/ESA/SER.A.352<br />

World Bank/FAO/IFAD. 2009. Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. Washington, DC, World Bank.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Drivers of global soil change<br />

99


6 | Global soil status,<br />

processes and trends<br />

6.1 | Global status, processes and trends in soil erosion<br />

6.1.1 | Processes<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion is broadly defined as the accelerated removal of topsoil from the land surface through water,<br />

wind or tillage. Water erosion on agricultural land occurs mainly when overland flow entrains soil particles<br />

detached by drop impact or runoff, often leading to clearly defined channels such as rills or gullies. Wind<br />

erosion occurs when dry, loose, bare soil is subjected to strong winds. Wind erosion is common in semi-arid<br />

areas where strong winds can easily mobilize soil particles, especially during dry spells. This dynamic physical<br />

aeolian process includes the detachment of particles from the soil, transport for varying distances depending<br />

on site, particle and wind characteristics, and subsequent deposition in a new location, causing onsite and<br />

offsite effects. During wind erosion events, larger particles creep along the ground or saltate (bounce) across<br />

the surface until they are deposited relatively close to field boundaries (Hagen et al., 2007). Finer particles (<<br />

80 µm) can travel great distances, with the finest particles entering global circulation (Shao, 2000). Tillage<br />

erosion is the direct down-slope movement of soil by tillage implements where particles only redistribute<br />

within a field.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

100


6.1.2 | Status of <strong>Soil</strong> Erosion<br />

Over the last decade, the figures published for water erosion range over an order of magnitude of ca. 20 Gt<br />

(gigaton) yr -1 to over 200 Gt yr -1 . While this huge variation may at first seem to suggest that our estimates of<br />

global soil erosion are very uncertain, a more detailed analysis shows that estimates exceeding ca. 50 Gt yr -1 are<br />

not realistic. In most cases, excessively high estimates can be traced back to conceptually flawed approaches<br />

and/or inappropriate model applications. Considering only those estimates that are not manifestly affected<br />

by such problems, the most likely range of global soil erosion by water is 20–30 Gt yr -1 , while tillage erosion<br />

may amount to ca. 5 Gt yr -1 .<br />

Total erosion rates for wind erosion are highly uncertain. Estimates of the total amount of dust that is<br />

yearly mobilized on land place an upper limit on dust mobilization by wind erosion on arable land at ca. 2<br />

Gt yr -1 . However, wind not only mobilizes dust but also coarser soil particles (sand), implying much higher<br />

total wind erosion rates. A large number of studies have made global estimates of wind erosion and dust<br />

transport. Approximately 430 million ha of drylands, which comprise 40 percent of the Earth’s surface (Ravi<br />

et al., 2011), are susceptible to wind erosion (Middleton and Thomas, 1997). In a survey of global estimates of<br />

present-climate dust emissions, Shao et al. (2011) described 13 studies that estimated global dust emissions in<br />

a range from 500 to ~ 3320 Tg yr -1 . Ginoux et al. (2012). The studies used global-scale high-resolution satellite<br />

imagery to study dust sources. They found that natural dust sources do account for about 75 percent of dust<br />

emissions and the remaining 25 percent of emissions were attributed to anthropogenic sources. The fraction<br />

of dust sources was highly variable. For example, although North Africa accounted for about 55 percent of the<br />

global dust emissions, only 8 percent originated from anthropogenic sources. In contrast, anthropogenic dust<br />

sources contributed 75 percent of the dust emissions in Australia (Ginoux et al., 2012).<br />

Translating these global estimates into accurate local soil erosion rates is not straightforward as soil<br />

erosion is highly variable, both in time and in space. However, typical soil erosion rates by water can be defined<br />

for representative agro-ecological conditions. Hilly croplands under conventional agriculture and orchards<br />

without additional soil cover in temperate climate zones are subject to erosion rates up to 10-20 tonnes ha -1<br />

yr -1 , while average rates are often < 10 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . Values during high-intensity rainfall events may reach<br />

100 tonnes ha -1 and lead to muddy flooding in downstream areas. Erosion rates on hilly croplands in tropical<br />

and subtropical areas may reach values up to 50 -1 00 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . Average rates, however, are lower and<br />

often 10-20 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . These high rates are due to the combination of an erosive climate (high intensity<br />

rainfall) and slope gradients which are generally steeper than those on cultivated land in the temperate<br />

zones. The incidence of erosion on steep slopes is due not only to specific topographic conditions, but also<br />

to the combination of a high population pressure with low-intensity agriculture, leading to the cultivation of<br />

marginal steeplands.<br />

Rangelands and pasturelands in hilly tropical and sub-tropical areas may suffer erosion rates similar to<br />

those of tropical croplands. Due to the lack of field boundaries, which often act as barriers for sediment and<br />

runoff and promote infiltration, these rangelands may also be particularly vulnerable to gully formation.<br />

This may not affect topsoil so much but may make land inaccessible and hence unusable. Rangelands and<br />

pasturelands in temperate areas are characterized by erosion rates which are generally much lower and<br />

are most often below 1 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . These rangelands are less intensively used and better managed than<br />

(sub-) tropical rangelands.<br />

It is possible to identify the areas in the world where soil erosion by water is problematic based on a<br />

relatively simple modelling approach combining information on soil type, land use, topography and climate<br />

(Doetterl, Van Oost and Six, 2012; Van Oost et al., 2007). <strong>Soil</strong> erosion by water is problematic in much of the<br />

hilly areas that are used as croplands on all continents, even where there have been significant conservation<br />

efforts as in the Mid-West of United States. Cropland in Europe is characterized by somewhat lower, yet still<br />

very significant soil erosion rates (Figure 6.1).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

101


Prepared by K. Van Oost<br />

Figure 6.1 Spatial variation of soil erosion by water. High rates (>ca. 20 t ha -1 y -1 ) mainly occur on cropland in tropical areas.<br />

The map gives an indication of current erosion rates and does not assess the degradation status of the soils.<br />

The map is derived from Van Oost et al., 2007 using a quantile classification.<br />

The redistribution of soil within fields due to tillage erosion rates may lead to (very) high erosion rates<br />

on convexities (knolls) exceeding 30 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; and to deposition rates in hollows and at down slope<br />

field borders exceeding 100 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . These rates are not directly comparable to wind or water erosion<br />

rates, as soil eroded by tillage will not leave the field. However, tillage erosion may significantly reduce crop<br />

productivity on convexities and near upslope field or terrace borders.<br />

Evidence of past erosion is extensive. This is demonstrated by wind-blown sands of sandstone bedrock,<br />

extensive loess accumulations of silt-sized aeolian sediments, and other formerly aeolian-affected landscapes.<br />

Large areas of sand seas, dune fields and other aeolian features and observations of activity provide further<br />

evidence of past wind erosion (Figure 6.2).<br />

USDA estimates place wind erosion rates at ca. 2.5 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 on average over all cropland of the United<br />

States while the average erosion rate for pastureland is ca. 0.1 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . There are very few quantitative<br />

assessments of wind erosion rates on arable land outside of the United States.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

102


Figure 6.2 Location of active and fixed aeolian deposits. Source: Thomas and Wiggs, 2008.<br />

6.1.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion versus soil formation<br />

The accelerated loss of topsoil through erosion from agricultural land was recognized as an important<br />

threat to the world’s soil resource many decades ago. Furthermore, it was feared that soil was, in many areas,<br />

eroding much faster than that it could be replaced through soil formation processes. More recent studies have<br />

confirmed that these early observations were not just perceptions. Estimated rates of soil erosion of arable or<br />

intensively grazed lands have been found to be 100 -1 000 times higher than natural background erosion rates.<br />

These erosion rates are also much higher than known soil formation rates which are typically well below 1<br />

tonnes ha -1 yr -1 with median values of ca. 0.15 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . The large difference between erosion rates under<br />

conventional agriculture and soil formation rates implies that we are essentially mining the soil and that we<br />

should consider the resource as non-renewable.<br />

The imbalance between erosion rates under conventional agriculture and the rate of soil formation implies<br />

that conventional agriculture on hilly land is not sustainable because the soil resource is mined and will<br />

ultimately become depleted. This has most likely already happened in many areas around the Mediterranean<br />

Sea and in tropical mountain regions. So-called soil loss tolerance levels may help to set objectives for shortterm<br />

action. However, long-term sustainability requires that soil erosion rates on agricultural land are reduced<br />

to near-zero levels.<br />

Figure 6.3 <strong>Soil</strong> relict in the Jadan basin, Ecuador.<br />

Photo by G. Govers<br />

In this area overgrazing led to excessive erosion and the soil<br />

has been completely stripped from most of the landscape<br />

in less than 200 years, exposing the highly weathered<br />

bedrock below. The person is standing on a small patch of<br />

the B-horizon of the original soil that has been preserved.<br />

Picture credit: Gerard Govers.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

103


6.1.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erodibility refers to the degree or intensity of a soil’s state or susceptibility to being eroded (SSSA,<br />

2008). A critical review of research into the factors controlling susceptibility of soils to wind erosion (‘soil wind<br />

erodibility’) has been provided by Webb and Strong (2011). Factors controlling soil wind erodibility include<br />

physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the soil, including texture, aggregation, stability, crusting,<br />

the amount of loose erodible sediment available, soil water content, roughness due to surface features<br />

(including tillage marks and vegetation) etc. The factors controlling soil wind erodibility differ somewhat<br />

among land uses and management approaches. For example, the factors controlling erodibility on rangeland<br />

differ from the factors controlling erodibility on farmland. In cropped soils at the field scale, disturbance due<br />

to tillage modifies the soil surface roughness, the amount and distribution of surface cover, soil water content<br />

aggregation and other properties, all of which affect soil erodibility for short periods of time (Zobeck, 1991;<br />

Zobeck and Van Pelt, 2011). In arid and semiarid rangeland ecosystems, wind erosion depends on vegetative<br />

cover and patchiness (Okin et al., 2009) and on surface soil texture and crusting, characteristics that change<br />

more slowly unless disturbed. Not only do the factors controlling erosion by wind differ among land uses,<br />

but differences occur in their spatial and temporal variability. Natural and anthropogenic disturbances such<br />

as grazing, fire and other activities alter the surface and vegetation on rangeland while crop management<br />

practices often control erodibility of farmland. Webb and Strong (2011) described the dynamics of soil<br />

erodibility as a continuum that responds to changes in climate variability and disturbance. Factors such as<br />

rain and crusting on some soils may initially produce low erodibility that will subsequently increase with<br />

disturbance and drying. The exact timing and variability of changes in erodibility will vary with inherent soil<br />

physical properties such as soil texture.<br />

6.1.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and agriculture<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion has direct, negative effects for global agriculture. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion by water induces annual fluxes<br />

of 23-42 Mt (megaton) N and 14.6-26.4 Mt P off agricultural land. These fluxes may be compared to annual<br />

fertilizer application rates, which are ca. 112 Tg for N and ca. 18 Tg of P. These nutrient losses need to be replaced<br />

through fertilization at a significant economic cost. Using a United States farm price of ca. US$ 1.45 per kg of N<br />

and ca. US$ 5.26 per kg of P implies an annual economic cost of US$ 33-60 billion for N and US$ 77 -1 40 billion for<br />

P 1 . It is therefore clear that compensation for erosion-induced nutrient losses requires a massive investment in<br />

fertilizer use. In poor regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, the economic resources to achieve compensations<br />

for nutrient losses do not exist. As a consequence, the removal of nutrients by erosion from agricultural fields<br />

is much higher than the amount of fertilizer applied.<br />

The detrimental removal of soil and nutrients from upland fields may be partly offset through the deposition<br />

of the eroded soil and nutrients in depositional areas. While this is true, such gains should not be exaggerated:<br />

the deposition of sediments and nutrients in large floodplains is not directly coupled to actual agricultural<br />

soil erosion, as in most cases sediments are provided by other sources (natural erosion, landslides) and the<br />

residence time of such sediments in large river systems is several thousands of years. In other words: the<br />

sediments that are currently being deposited in the Nile valley are not coming from the soils that are currently<br />

being eroded in Ethiopia. On a smaller scale, the deposition of eroded sediment may indeed locally increase<br />

local crop productivity, but such effects may be overshadowed by other factors, such as water availability.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion does not induce an important carbon loss from the soil to the atmosphere: erosion mostly<br />

induces a transfer of carbon from eroding locations to depositional locations. Net losses are limited as the<br />

carbon lost at eroding locations is partially replaced through dynamic replacement whereas the soil carbon<br />

that is deposited in colluvial and alluvial settings may be stored there for several centuries.<br />

1 www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx#26727<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

104


High soil erosion rates will also have significant negative effects over longer time spans: the loss of topsoil<br />

will result in a reduction in the soil’s capacity to provide rooting space and, more importantly, in the capacity<br />

to store water that can be released to plants. This may reduce soil productivity. However, these changes occur<br />

relatively slowly: the reduction in soil water holding capacity and and/or root space accommodation results<br />

in yield declines of ca. 4 percent per 0.1m of soil lost. Except for areas where erosion rates are very high (e.g.<br />

exceeding 50 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 or ca. 4 mm yr -1 ) this means that effects of erosion on crop productivity will<br />

be relatively small on the decennial or centennial time scale, provided that nutrient losses due to erosion are<br />

compensated. Over longer time spans, however, the effect of these losses becomes very significant.<br />

On the positive side, transported dust affects distant ecosystems, increasing plant productivity by providing<br />

nutrients not provided by the parent soil, as seen in Hawaii (Chadwick et al., 1999) and the Amazon (Mahowald<br />

et al., 2008). Transported dust can also provide chemical constituents that affect soil development, as seen in<br />

the development of terra rossa soils in Bermuda and Spain (Muhs et al., 2010, 2012).<br />

6.1.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and the environment<br />

The direct negative effects of soil erosion are not limited to agriculture. The sediment produced by erosion<br />

also pollutes water streams with sediment and nutrients, thereby reducing water quality. In addition,<br />

sediment contributes to siltation in reservoirs and lakes. However, not all sediments trapped in reservoirs<br />

originate from agricultural land. Other processes such as bank erosion, landslides and natural surface erosion<br />

which contribute to reservoir sedimentation are also very important and are often dominant at large scales.<br />

Wind erosion and dust transport have been studied for many years. For example, in 1646, Wendelin first<br />

described purple rain in Brussels that we now recognize as coloured dust transported to Europe from Africa<br />

(Wendelin, 1646 as cited in Stout, Warren and Gill, 2009). Charles Darwin studied dust that fell on the HMS<br />

Beagle in the 1830s and 1840s (Darwin, 1845, 1846) and the dust collected was found to contain viable microbes<br />

even today (Gorbushina et al., 2007).<br />

Wind erosion can originate from natural landscapes and from landscapes affected by anthropogenic<br />

(human-related) activities (Figure 6.4). Aeolian processes impact soil development, mineralogy, soil physical<br />

and biogeochemical properties, and redistribution of soil nutrients, organic materials, and sequestered<br />

contaminants. Wind erosion also affects landscape evolution, plant productivity, human and animal health<br />

(Ravi et al., 2011), atmospheric properties including effects on solar radiation and cloud attributes (Shao et al.,<br />

2011), air quality, and other factors (Field et al., 2010; Ravi et al., 2011). The effects of wind erosion occur at the<br />

field, landscape, regional, and global scales.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

105


Photo by T.M. Zobeck<br />

Figure 6.4 Dust storm near Meadow, Texas, USA<br />

At the field and landscape scales, wind erosion winnows the finer and more chemically active portion<br />

of the soil which carries biogeochemicals, including plant nutrients, soil carbon and microbial products. In<br />

some cases, wind erosion processes modify the surface properties by causing increases in sand content while<br />

reducing the soil water holding capacity and plant productivity (Zobeck and Van Pelt, 2011). Although some of<br />

this eroded sediment is deposited relatively close to field boundaries, often much of it enters into suspended<br />

mode and may be transported high in the atmosphere to travel great distances. This long-range transport of<br />

dust produces effects at the global and regional scales Atmospheric dust produced by wind erosion profoundly<br />

influences the energy balance of the Earth system by carrying organic material, iron, phosphorus and other<br />

nutrients to the oceans, affecting ocean productivity and subsequent ocean-atmosphere CO 2<br />

exchange (Shao<br />

et al., 2011).<br />

6.1.7 | Effects of hydrology and water<br />

Wind erodibility and subsequent erosion and dust emissions are affected by hydrology and water in several<br />

ways. Remote sensing studies of dust sources by Prospero et al. (2002) showed that many major dust sources<br />

originate from deep alluvial deposits formed by intermittent flooding during the Quaternary and Holocene.<br />

These sources, now in drylands, originated when water was more plentiful and produced an ample supply of<br />

wind-erodible sediment (Ginoux et al., 2012). In many areas, particularly in areas with more limited erodible<br />

sediment supply, dust emissions increase after new inundations of ephemeral water supplies provide additional<br />

erodible sediment. However, many fluvial-related dust sources have also developed from the exposure, due to<br />

anthropogenic factors, of the bottoms of former lakes such as at Owens Lake in the United States (Reheis,<br />

1997) and the Aral Sea Basin in Uzbekistan (Singer et al., 2003). In these cases, usually water has been extracted<br />

from the lake for irrigation or human consumptive needs. This issue will be accentuated as increasing demand<br />

for water in dryland regions is met from reservoirs.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

106


Near-surface soil water content has long been recognized to have a significant effect on the threshold wind<br />

velocity needed for wind erosion (Akiba, 1933; Chepil, 1956). <strong>Soil</strong> water acts to bind particles together to resist<br />

the shearing force of wind on the particles. In addition, soil water affects vegetative growth, which also affects<br />

wind erosion. Research has shown a time-dependent change in the controlling factors for sediment emission<br />

and transport from soil water to wind speed (Wiggs, Baird and Atherton, 2004). The change of controlling<br />

factors was found to be very sensitive to the prevailing water conditions and, for the sandy soil tested, took<br />

place in a very short period of time. They found the soil water content where wind erosion commenced was<br />

between 4 and 6 percent (Wiggs, Baird and Atherton, 2004). However, the effect of soil water on wind erosion<br />

of dry soils is also sensitive to changes in air relative humidity (Ravi et al., 2006). Recent work on atmospheric<br />

dust concentrations have confirmed this sensitivity, finding that dust concentration increased with relative<br />

humidity, reaching a maximum around 25 percent and thereafter decreased with relative humidity (Csavina et<br />

al., 2014). Climate-induced changes in hydrology and water may produce profound changes in wind erosion<br />

and dust emissions as the soil erodibility is altered.<br />

6.1.8 | Vegetation effects<br />

The effect of vegetation on wind erosion is complex. In native conditions, the wind influences patterns<br />

of vegetation and soils and these patterns, in turn, affect wind erosion at patch to landscape scales (Okin,<br />

Gillette and Herrick, 2006; Okin et al., 2009; Munson, Belnap and Okin, 2011). In agricultural systems, the<br />

vegetation is manipulated by managers and its effects vary spatially and temporally from non-managed<br />

systems. The protective effects of vegetation are well known. A wide variety of methods and models has been<br />

devised to describe the protective effects of vegetation. In general, as vegetation height and cover increase,<br />

wind erosion of erodible land decreases. Vegetation affects wind erodibility by: (1) acting to extract momentum<br />

from the wind and thereby reducing the wind energy applied to the soil surface; (2) directly sheltering the soil<br />

surface from the wind by covering part of the surface and reducing the leeside wind velocity; and (3) trapping<br />

windborne particles, so reducing the horizontal and vertical flux of sediment (Okin, Gillette and Herrick,<br />

2006). Trapping of sediment leads to redistribution of nutrients and modifies surface soil properties such as<br />

water infiltration rate and soil bulk density.<br />

Vegetation cover affects nutrient removal, which in turn affects plant productivity. A study of the effects<br />

of grass cover on wind erosion in a desert ecosystem found increased wind erosion removed 25 percent of the<br />

total soil organic carbon and nitrogen from the top 5 cm of soil after only three windy seasons (Li et al., 2007).<br />

Studies of agricultural crops on severely eroded cropland found 40 percent reductions in cotton and kenaf<br />

yields and 58 percent reduction in grain yield in sorghum (Zobeck and Bilbro, 2001). The eroded areas in this<br />

study had statistically significantly less phosphorus than the adjacent non-eroded areas. Climatic changes<br />

that reduce the cover of vegetation in drylands will increase wind erosion and dust emissions, and likely result<br />

in increased soil degradation and reduced plant productivity.<br />

6.1.9 | Alteration of nutrient and dust cycling<br />

Recognition of a dust cycle, along with other important cycles such as the energy, carbon and water cycles,<br />

has become an emerging core theme in Earth system science (Shao et al., 2011). Dust cycles are dependent<br />

upon the soil and climate systems within which they operate. The dust cycle is a product, in part, of the soil<br />

system. As dust is transported globally, it interacts with other cycles by participating in a range of physical<br />

and biogeochemical processes. The dust carries important nutrients to otherwise sterile soils and so may<br />

improve productivity (Chadwick et al., 1999; Mahowald et al., 2008). Dust may also transport soil parent<br />

material (Reynolds et al., 2006), trace metals (Van Pelt and Zobeck, 2007), soil biota (Gardner et al., 2012) and<br />

toxic anthropogenics (Larney et al., 1999) among ecosystems. Although the fact is not widely recognized, the<br />

global dust cycle is intimately tied to the global carbon cycle (Chappell et al., 2013). Wind and water erosion<br />

both redistribute soil organic carbon within terrestrial, atmospheric and aquatic ecosystems. This carbon is<br />

selectively removed from the soil. This was recently demonstrated in an Australian study where the soil organic<br />

carbon in dust was from 1.7 to over seven times that of the source soil (Webb et al., 2012). Changing climate will<br />

alter these cycles, producing complex and uncertain environmental effects.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

107


6.1.10 | Trends in soil erosion<br />

While rates of soil erosion are still very high on extensive areas of cropland and rangeland, erosion rates have<br />

been significantly reduced in several areas of the world in recent decades. The best documented example is the<br />

reduction of erosion rates on cropland in the United States. Average water erosion rates on cropland were<br />

reduced from 10.8 to 7.4 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 between 1982 and 2007, while wind erosion rates reduced from 8.9 to<br />

6.2 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 over the same time span. Another example is the reduction of soil erosion in Brazil through<br />

the application of no-tillage from ca. 1980 onwards. This is estimated to have led to a reduction of erosion<br />

rates by 70-90 percent over large parts of Brazilian cropland. Studies have shown that erosion rates can be<br />

greatly reduced in nearly every situation through the application of appropriate management techniques and<br />

structural measures such as terrace and waterway construction (see, for example, Pansak et al., 2008).<br />

However, in many areas of the world, adoption of soil conservation measures is slow. While the reasons for<br />

this are diverse, a key point is that the adoption of soil conservation measures is generally not directly beneficial<br />

to farmers. This is as true in intensive mechanized systems in the West as it is for smallholder farming in the<br />

developing world. This is not surprising: the implementation of conservation measures does not, as such,<br />

directly increase yields or efficiencies while the detrimental effects of erosion on the soil capital only become<br />

visible over time scales that range from decades to centuries. Hence, farmers do not have a direct incentive to<br />

adopt soil conservation measures.<br />

In some cases, this problem may be overcome through financial incentives or by regulation. It is clear,<br />

however, that this is not always possible. We need, therefore, to rethink our vision on soil conservation.<br />

Essentially, further adoption of soil conservation measures will not in the first place depend on refinement<br />

or optimization of technologies. Technology already exists to reduce erosion to acceptable levels under<br />

most circumstances. What is critically important is to work out how to incorporate soil conservation in an<br />

agricultural system that, as a whole, increases the net returns of farmers. In developing approaches that build<br />

in incentives to soil conservation, it is vital to account for local conditions, including the extent to which local<br />

markets can provide incentives to sustainable agriculture.<br />

The potential for agricultural intensification is key here. In many areas around the world, crop yields are<br />

low and more land is cultivated than is strictly necessary. As a result, large tracts of steep, marginal land are<br />

at present used for agriculture without the implementation of proper soil conservation technology, with the<br />

result that these areas are subject to high erosion rates. Intensification of production on higher potential<br />

land is an option. This not only reduces extension into marginal, highly erodible areas but may also benefit<br />

biodiversity and overall carbon storage at the landscape scale.<br />

Erosion can also be checked by forestation. In many areas there is now a net gain of forest area. This<br />

reforestation, which is largely of marginal land, is related to four main factors: agricultural intensification;<br />

diminishing need for firewood; an increase in exchange and trade making it possible to grow products in the<br />

most suitable areas; and an increased public awareness of the problems caused by deforestation. Development<br />

of conservation policies should consider these tendencies and stimulate them wherever possible.<br />

6.1.11 | Conclusions<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion has been recognized as a main problem threatening the sustainability of agriculture for a long<br />

time and the magnitude of the problem can now be correctly quantified. The technology to reduce erosion<br />

now exists and, over the last decades, significant efforts have been to reduce erosion rates. These efforts have<br />

been partially successful. However, erosion rates are still high on much of the agricultural land of the globe,<br />

and this is related to the lack of economic incentives for today’s farmers to conserve the soil resource for future<br />

generations. Tackling this problem requires the soil erosion problem to be reframed. Solutions need to be<br />

embedded in policies and programs that support the development of more sustainable agricultural systems.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

108


6.2 | Global soil organic carbon status and trends<br />

6.2.1 | Introduction<br />

An evaluation of the various functions of carbon (C) stored in the soil and its role in the global C-cycle<br />

require knowledge of the amount and geographic distribution of C stored in the soil. The functions of soil C are<br />

determined by the chemical and physical properties of the components that contain C. Chemical properties of<br />

soil C determine properties such as soil pH, nutrient storage and availability and regulating functions affecting<br />

the water cycle. <strong>Soil</strong> physical properties related to functions of C are: soil structure, particle agglomeration,<br />

and stability. These properties in turn influence water infiltration rates and resistance to water and wind<br />

erosion.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> C is separated into: (i) inorganic chemical substances (soil inorganic carbon: SIC), mainly carbonates;<br />

and (ii) C as part of organic compounds (soil organic carbon: SOC). The amount of SIC in the first one meter of<br />

soil was estimated at 695 - 748 Pg carbonate C (Batjes, 1996). The C stored as SOC is about twice the C stored as<br />

SIC (1 502 Pg C; Jobbágy and Jackson, 2000). Carbonates are less susceptible to react to anthropogenic changes<br />

to the environment than are organic compounds. In addition, the amount and type of organic C compounds<br />

are interdependent with environmental conditions, such as land use and management practices. These two<br />

characteristics have led to the definition of the persistence of SOC as an ecosystem property (Schmidt et al.,<br />

2011). Thus, assessments of soil C stocks and their spatial distribution often concentrate on SOC alone.<br />

Although SOC mainly originates from plant material there is no simple correlation between the amount of<br />

C stored in the above-ground plant material and the SOC stocks (Amundson, 2001; Smith, 2012). In fact, the<br />

processes involved in decomposing organic material and their mineralization are complex and details are not<br />

yet fully understood (Schmidt et al., 2011). However, the effects on SOC of anthropogenic activities of land use<br />

change and management practices are known. Given the large amount of C stored in soils and the possibility<br />

of influencing this amount through land management to act as a source or sink for atmospheric C, strategies<br />

for maintaining SOC have been devised. These strategies follow two main approaches: (i) seeking to enhance<br />

existing SOC by increasing the amount of biomass of the terrestrial biosphere; (ii) seeking to decrease the loss<br />

of SOC by reducing the respiration rate (Smith et al., 2008). To provide a quantitative appraisal of the possible<br />

gains or losses in SOC from measures taken either to increase the input of organic material or decrease losses<br />

of soil organic matter (SOM), an assessment of the current situation is needed.<br />

Studies on historic developments in SOC stocks concentrate on the effect of changes in land use. These<br />

changes mainly concern the transformation of land from a natural state to an agricultural ecosystem, which<br />

in fact now covers more than one third of the global terrestrial area. For the conversion of forest to cropland,<br />

losses in SOC stocks of 25-30 percent were observed for temperate regions, with higher losses recorded for the<br />

tropics. Estimates of future trends in SOC stocks concentrate on the effect of changing climatic conditions<br />

on rates of organic matter accumulation and decomposition. As options for changes in land use are relatively<br />

limited, approaches to mitigation of climate change effects have focussed largely on management practices.<br />

6.2.2 | Estimates of global soil organic carbon stocks<br />

It is important to know past, current and likely future SOC stocks because of their importance to climate<br />

change and food security. When assessing the amount of C stored in the soil, studies often concentrate on C<br />

contained in dead and decomposed organic material or in organic matter located within the soil profile to a<br />

given depth and for a specific area. The mass of C stored in the SOM is also termed SOC stocks. SOC stocks<br />

are computed as a function of organic C-content, bulk density, depth and the amount of soil remaining after<br />

removing the volume taken up by coarse fragments in a unit of volume. Any of these factors can introduce<br />

uncertainties to the estimates.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

109


Global estimates of SOC stocks have been published for many decades. One of the earliest estimates was<br />

published in 1951 (Rubey, 1951), indicating a global SOC stock of 710 Pg C. This estimate remained current for<br />

25 years until the FAO-UNESCO soil map became available. Analysis of the map data led to a much higher<br />

estimate of 3 000 Pg C in the soil (Bohn, 1976). Several studies of global SOC stock followed with varying<br />

estimates (Bohn, 1982: 2 200 Pg organic C; Post et al., 1982: 1 395 Pg organic C) An estimate of 1 576 Pg of SOC<br />

to 1 m depth was put forward by Eswaran, Van Den Berg and Reich, 1993. Global SOC stocks to 1 m depth of<br />

1 462 – 1 548 Pg of SOC were estimated by Batjes, 1996. An estimate of 1 502 Pg organic C for the first 1 m of soil<br />

is often used (Jobbágy and Jackson, 2000; Batjes, 2002). The estimate of 1 500 Pg of SOC for the top 1 m of<br />

soil was adopted by the IPCC (IPCC, 2000). Current global estimates, derived from the Harmonized World <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Database (HWSD; FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC, 2009), suggest that approximately 1 417 Pg of SOC are stored<br />

in the first meter of soil and about 716 Pg organic C in the top 30 cm (Hiederer and Köchy, 2011).<br />

Fewer estimates of global SOC stock estimates are available for a depth below 1 m. Global SOC stocks to a<br />

depth of 3 m are estimated at 2 344 Pg of SOC (Jobbágy and Jackson, 2000) or 3 000 Pg of SOC (Jansson et al.,<br />

2010). Recent estimates of SOC in Cryosols may further increase the estimates of global SOC stocks (Tarnocai<br />

et al., 2009).<br />

In a comparison of 27 studies on global SOC stock published between 1951 and 2011, the estimates published<br />

were found to range from 504 to 3 000 Pg of SOC (Scharlemann et al., 2014). The median of all published<br />

estimates is 1 460 Pg of SOC to 1 m depth. Spatially explicit estimates were found to span over 1 965 Pg of<br />

SOC. Large uncertainties over SOC stocks concern Histosols since soil data are often limited to a depth of 1 m<br />

(Eswaran, Van Den Berg and Reich, 1993). Particularly affected are the soils of the Arctic (Tarnocai et al., 2009)<br />

and peatlands in South Asia (Couwenberg, Dommain and Joosten, 2010). The range in the estimates of global<br />

SOC stocks correspond to or exceed the amount of C held in the atmosphere, which was estimated at 720 Pg<br />

C (Falkowski et al., 2000) and at 820 Pg C for present conditions (Mackey et al., 2013).<br />

With respect to the uncertainty in the estimates of global SOC stocks, various approximations are observed.<br />

For an estimated SOC stock of 1 395 Pg of SOC Post et al. (1982) assume a standard deviation of ± 200 Pg<br />

organic C, provided that the SOC density data are the only source of uncertainty. For the estimate of 1 502 Pg<br />

organic C to 1 m depth, Jobbágy and Jackson (2000) suggested an error of the mean of ± 320 Pg C at 1 standard<br />

deviation, provided that the SOC content data are the only source of uncertainty. The different assumptions<br />

on the causes of uncertainty between the studies (SOC density or content) are quite significant. Based on the<br />

HWSD, Todd-Brown et al. (2013) provide an interval of estimated global SOC stock of 890 to 1 660 Pg of SOC<br />

to a depth of 1 m with a 95 percent confidence level. This range corresponds to approximately 385 Pg SOC at 2<br />

standard deviations from the mean.<br />

With a small number of large-scale data sets available, the variations in SOC stock estimates may be<br />

attributed to the analysis method applied as much as to the data used. It also implies that various global SOC<br />

stock estimates are not independent and that the variability in the estimates could not necessarily be reduced<br />

by an increase in the number in such estimates.<br />

One problem common to all large databases is that the properties were assessed decades ago and stretched<br />

over long periods. For example, the DSMW or the ESDB, of which components are included in the HWSD,<br />

originated from data collected during the 1950s and 1960s. With the dependence of SOC on climatic conditions<br />

and anthropogenic activities, SOC stocks established decades apart are likely to represent significantly<br />

different levels, notably in areas where changes in land use or management occurred, such as conversion of<br />

natural grassland and forest to agricultural land or urban areas. In extreme cases draining peatlands can lead<br />

to a loss of organic material to the degree that the soil no longer qualifies as peat because the organic C content<br />

decreases below 12 percent content and the thickness of the remaining organic layer is less than 40 cm (FAO/<br />

ISRIC/ISSS, 1998). An example of this change is given by the agricultural areas in north-eastern Netherlands,<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

110


where the drainage in the 1960’s of areas previously classified as peatland caused the SOC content to fall to 7.5<br />

percent (Panagos et al., 2013). Without further adjustments of SOC stock estimates to take account of local<br />

changes in the factors that influence SOC, no clear timestamp can be attached to the global estimates. This<br />

lack of a clear timestamp of SOC stocks is of consequence when estimating temporal changes in SOC stocks.<br />

Estimates of changes in SOC stock therefore concentrate on modelling variations in SOC from changes in land<br />

use and cover.<br />

6.2.3 | Spatial distribution of SOC<br />

Different methods of combining point data from soil profiles with soil spatial layers and ancillary ecological<br />

data can be applied to derive spatial estimates of SOC stocks (Kern, 1994). SOC density and stock estimates<br />

from soil profile data were combined with spatial data of major ecosystems by Post et al. (1982). The total SOC<br />

stocks for all life zones to a depth of 1 m was 1 395 Pg of SOC. A combination of soil profile data with ancillary<br />

information on climate, vegetation and land use was used by Jobbágy and Jackson (2000) to estimate SOC<br />

stocks in 11 biomes. The estimates for the biomes were further divided into increments of 1 m soil depth and<br />

of 20 cm for the first meter. The distribution of SOC stocks by ecological regions has also been presented, for<br />

example by Amundson (2001), who used life zones as the study unit. Eglin et al. (2010) used the SOC stock<br />

estimates to a depth of 3 m from Jobbágy and Jackson (2000) and modified SOC stocks in permafrost areas<br />

(Tarnocai et al., 2009). These SOC stock estimates were combined with estimates provided by the IPCC (IPCC,<br />

2000) of C in vegetation to derive estimates of C in soil and biomass for 10 biomes, with an explicit class for<br />

peatlands. A step towards adding a temporal dimension to spatial SOC stock estimates, assessing historical<br />

and future trends, was made possible by the availability of SOC models. Combining the models with historic<br />

land use and climate data has allowed estimation of SOC stocks with a timestamp and with regional variations<br />

(Eglin et al., 2010; Schmidt et al., 2011).<br />

Carré et al. (2010) produced estimates of SOC stocks and density using climate data, IPCC methodology and<br />

the Harmonized World <strong>Soil</strong> Database. The results by IPCC Climate Region are presented in Table 6.1.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

111


IPCC Climate Region IPCC HWSDa<br />

Tier 1 Topsoil Subsoil <strong>Soil</strong> Density<br />

0-30 cm 0-≤30 cm 30-≤100 cm 0-≤100 cm 0-≤30 cm<br />

Pg C Pg C Pg C Pg C* Mg C ha -1<br />

Tropical Wet 52.4 62.6 65.4 128.0 66.5<br />

Tropical Moist 94.5 78.6 72.3 150.9 45.0<br />

Tropical Dry 99.9 67.3 69.0 136.2 22.0<br />

Tropical Montane 49.8 29.6 26.5 56.1 40.3<br />

Warm Temperate Moist 41.7 33.3 29.7 63.0 60.2<br />

Warm Temperate Dry 42.9 38.9 39.6 78.5 30.8<br />

Cool Temperate Moist 110.6 104.1 106.2 210.3 88.2<br />

Cool Temperate Dry 56.9 52.2 50.0 102.2 42.7<br />

Boreal Moist 137.3 162.0 194.7 356.7 117.6<br />

Boreal Dry 30.3 32.0 37.0 68.1 84.0<br />

Polar Moist 26.8 30.6 21.7 52.4 40.4<br />

Polar Dry 7.2 8.0 4.3 12.3 40.5<br />

Total 750.3** 699.3 716.4 1415.7 52.1<br />

Table 6.1 Distribution of <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon Stocks and Density by IPCC Climate Region<br />

* Differences in topsoil and subsoil sum are due to data rounding<br />

** Total includes 1.4 Pg C in undefined climate regions<br />

The table shows that according to the processed data from HWSD, most SOC (356.7 Pg C) is stored in the<br />

‘Boreal Moist’ climatic region. The second largest stock is found in the ‘Cool Temperate Moist’ region (210.3 Pg<br />

C). With 117.6 Mg C ha -1 and 88.2 Mg C ha -1 , these climate regions also have the highest SOC densities. These<br />

figures compare poorly with those presented by Post et al. (1982). A major source for the deviation is the<br />

difference in the definition of the life zones as compared to the climatic regions, which lead to the delineation<br />

of different areas.<br />

Using the IPCC Tier 1 default values for organic C in mineral soils and retaining the stocks for organic soil<br />

gives global organic C stock in the upper 30 cm of soil of 750.3 Pg C. This estimate is 51 Pg C (7.3 percent) higher<br />

than the estimates derived from the HWSDa topsoil layer.<br />

When comparing the two spatial SOC stock estimates by IPCC climate region, the stocks within each region<br />

are broadly similar. A notable difference is for soils in the ‘Tropical Dry’ climate region. The IPCC Tier 1 SOC map<br />

gives 99.9 Pg C for this zone, compared to 67.3 Pg C found in the HWSDa.<br />

In the interpretation of the figure for SOC stocks of the IPCC Tier 1 <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon layer, it should be<br />

considered that organic soils were only added to the mineral soil layer in places where this soil type is not<br />

found in association with mineral soils. Using all organic soil data is likely to increase the global SOC stocks.<br />

However, the Tier 1 default values are calculated over a constant depth of 30cm, although some soils are<br />

shallower, which in turn would reduce the stocks.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

112


6.2.4 | Spatial distribution of carbon in biomass<br />

A global map of C stored in biomass following the IPCC Tier 1 approach was produced by the European<br />

Commission Joint Research Centre (Carré at al., 2010; EU, 2004; Hiederer et al., 2010). The C stocks are<br />

determined for above- and below-ground biomass and include dead organic matter for the relevant vegetation<br />

types. The default factors largely follow the IPCC specification, with specific attention given to agricultural<br />

areas. The underlying vegetation data are based on the GlobCover V 2.2 (ESA, 2011). Because the GlobCover data<br />

limits cropland to areas below 57º N in Europe the data were merged with the M 3-Cropland (Ramankutty et<br />

al., 2008) and Crops (Monfreda, Ramankutty and Foley, 2008). In a comparison of the geographic distribution<br />

of IPCC vegetation classes between the GlobCover and the M 3 Cropland and Pasture data, some notable<br />

differences were identified (Hiederer et al., 2010). Some of the differences were attributed to the dissimilar<br />

definition of the vegetation classes in the data sets, although others, such as the separation of shrub land<br />

from open forest or confusion between cropland and pastures, seem to be the result of the classification<br />

algorithm used or of sensor characteristics.<br />

The global biomass map thus generated by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) estimates the storage of C in<br />

the above-ground and below-ground vegetation and dead organic matter to be 456 Pg C. The JRC estimates<br />

are thus 44 Pg C (8.8 percent) lower than those of the ‘New IPCC Tier -1 Global Biomass Carbon Map for the<br />

Year 2000’ (Ruesch and Gibbs, 2008). The difference is not evenly distributed between geographic regions. A<br />

comparison of carbon in C by climatic region is given in Figure 6.5.<br />

Figure 6.5 Distribution of carbon in biomass between ORNL-CDIAC Biomass and JRC Carbon Biomass Map<br />

The graph shows that the ORNL-CDIAC Biomass and the JRC Carbon Biomass map are mostly comparable,<br />

but the JRC map places relatively more C in the biomass in ‘Cool Temperate Moist’ (11.4 percent of the total C<br />

stock in biomass; 51.8 Pg C) and ‘Warm Temperate Moist’ (8.7 percent of the total C stock in biomass; 39.9 Pg<br />

C) climate regions at the expense of other regions. By contrast, the ORNL-CDIAC Biomass map locates only 5.7<br />

percent of the total C stock in biomass (28.4 Pg C) in the ‘Cool Temperate Moist’ and 5.7 percent of the total C<br />

stock in biomass (28.7 Pg C) in the ‘Warm Temperate Moist’ climate region.<br />

For the total terrestrial pool of organic C, biomass is the more important pool only in the climate regions<br />

‘Tropical Wet’ and ‘Tropical Moist’. For all other climatic regions, the soil stores more organic C than the biomass<br />

(Scharleman et al., 2014).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

113


6.2.5 | Distribution of terrestrial carbon pool by vegetation class<br />

Areas where SOC or biomass C dominate could be identified by computing the difference between the two<br />

layers. The resulting layer is presented in Figure 6.6.<br />

Figure 6.6 Prevalence of carbon in the topsoil or biomass<br />

The figure shows that, as a general propensity, soil dominates the terrestrial C pool in cooler climates while<br />

vegetation forms the dominant pool of terrestrial C in tropical regions.<br />

In an attempt to provide C stock estimates for broad land use activities, global GLC 2000 data layers<br />

were used. The GLC 2000 categories were re-classified according to the assignments for these classes given<br />

by Ruesch and Gibbs (2008). A difference in the assignment was applied to GLC 2000 classes 16 (Cultivated<br />

and Managed Areas) and 23 (Irrigated Agriculture). In the broad classification these areas were grouped with<br />

other areas mainly associated with an absence of soil or biomass (bare areas, glaciers, etc.). For the analysis<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

114


Vegetation Classes Topsoil Subsoil <strong>Soil</strong> Biomass<br />

Terrestrial<br />

C Stock<br />

Pg C Pg C Pg C percent Pg C percent Pg C percent<br />

Broadleaf Forest 124.7 112.4 237.1 16.8 272.2 54.4 509.4 26.6<br />

Evergreen Forest 126.8 139.7 266.4 18.8 46.4 9.3 312.9 16.3<br />

Mixed Forest 40.5 47.8 88.3 6.2 21.8 4.4 110.1 5.7<br />

Burnt Forest and<br />

Natural Forest<br />

Mosaic<br />

Forest/Cropland<br />

Mosaic<br />

27.4 36.2 63.6 4.5 10.9 2.2 74.5 3.9<br />

23.2 23.4 46.6 3.3 28.0 5.6 74.6 3.9<br />

Forest 342.6 359.5 702.0 49.6 379.3 75.9 1081.5 56.4<br />

Shrub Cover 89.2 102.4 191.6 13.5 51.8 10.4 243.4 12.7<br />

Grasslands 60.5 52.1 112.6 8.0 18.0 3.6 130.5 6.8<br />

Sparse Grassland<br />

and Grassland<br />

Mosaic<br />

69.0 65.5 134.5 9.5 12.7 2.5 147.2 7.7<br />

Grassland 218.7 220.0 438.7 31.0 82.5 16.5 521.1 27.2<br />

Agriculture and<br />

managed areas<br />

80.8 79.4 160.2 11.3 26.7 5.3 186.9 9.8<br />

Other Classes 57.3 57.4 114.7 8.1 11.4 2.3 126.2 6.6<br />

Figure 6.7 Proportion of carbon in broad vegetation classes for soil and biomass carbon pool<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

115


of the distribution of organic C, a separate class of ‘Agriculture and Managed Areas’ was created by merging<br />

the GLC 2000 classes 16 and 23. For each of the broad vegetation classes the organic C stock was extracted by<br />

pool. The results are presented in Table 6.2.<br />

The single largest stock for terrestrial C is attributed to areas with broadleaf forest (509.4 Pg C). This forest<br />

type contains approximately one quarter of all terrestrial organic C in either the soil or the biomass.<br />

The proportions of the C stored in the soil and biomass stocks by broad vegetation class is graphically<br />

presented in Figure 6.7.<br />

For the biomass C stock alone, broad forests account for over 50 percent of the C in that pool, but only 16.8<br />

percent of the organic C is stored in the soils under this vegetation type. With the exception of the ‘Forest/<br />

Cropland Mosaic’, in all other vegetation classes the soil stores more C than the biomass.<br />

6.2.6 | Historic trends in soil carbon stocks<br />

The SOC stocks are more susceptible to anthropogenic activities and natural factors than are SIC stocks.<br />

Conversion of natural to agro-ecosystems in the past has led to decline in the SOC stock of the surface layers<br />

and also in SOC in the total profile for most soils. The magnitude of the historic loss, however, differs among<br />

soils and climates. The magnitude and rate of loss are higher for soils within the tropics than for those of<br />

temperate climates. Losses are also higher for coarse-textured than for heavy-textured soils, higher for<br />

soils containing higher SOC stocks, and higher for soils under subsistence or ‘extractive’ farming than for<br />

those farmed with more science-based agricultural practices. Depletion is also exacerbated by drainage of<br />

wetlands, by ploughing, and by biomass burning or removal. Some soils in the tropics can lose 50 percent of<br />

their previous pool within five years following deforestation and conversion to agricultural land use. The rate<br />

and magnitude of SOC loss are exacerbated in soils vulnerable to accelerated erosion, salinization, nutrient<br />

depletion or imbalance, structural decline and compaction, acidification, elemental toxicity, pollution and<br />

contamination.<br />

Estimates of the magnitude of historic SOC loss vary widely. The historic loss has been estimated at 40 Pg by<br />

Houghton (1995), 55 Pg by IPCC (1995) and Schimel (1995), 150 Pg by Bohr (1978), 500 Pg by Wallace (1994) and<br />

537 Pg by Buringh (1984). The average of these estimates is 223 Pg C year -1 . Lal (1999) estimated the magnitude<br />

of SOC loss since 1850 at 47 to 104 Pg for different biomes (Table 6.3); 66 to 90 Pg for major soils (Table 6.4);<br />

Biome<br />

Change in Area<br />

10 6 ha<br />

Historic SOC Loss<br />

Pg C<br />

Forests 1300 23 - 53<br />

Woodlands 180 3 - 7<br />

Shrublands 140 1 - 4<br />

Grasslands 660 20 - 40<br />

Total 47 - 104<br />

Table 6.3 Estimate of the historic SOC depletion from principal biomes. Source: Lal, 1999.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

116


<strong>Soil</strong> Order<br />

Historic Area<br />

10 6 ha<br />

Present SOC<br />

Pool Pg C<br />

Historic SOC Loss<br />

Pg C<br />

Alfisols 1330 91 15 - 18<br />

Andisols 110 30 5 - 7<br />

Aridsols 1560 54 0.2 - 0.3<br />

Entisols 2170 232 0.8 - 1.3<br />

Histosols 160 312 ?<br />

Inceptisols 950 324 8 - 13<br />

Mollisols 920 120 7 - 11<br />

Oxisols 1010 99 22 - 27<br />

Spososols 350 67 1 - 3<br />

Ultisols 1170 98 6 - 7<br />

Vertisols 320 18 1 - 2<br />

Gelisols 1120 238 0<br />

Others 1870 17 0.2 - 3<br />

Total 13050 1700 66 - 90<br />

Table 6.4 Estimates of historic SOC depletion from major soil orders. Source: Lal, 1999; Hillel and Rosenzweig, 2009.<br />

Erosion<br />

Water<br />

10 6 ha<br />

Area<br />

Wind<br />

10 6 ha<br />

Historic SOC Loss<br />

Pg<br />

Light 343 269 2 - 3<br />

Moderate 527 254 10 - 16<br />

Strong 224 26 7 - 12<br />

Total 19 - 31<br />

Table 6.5 Estimates of historic SOC loss from accelerated erosion by water and wind. Source: Lal, 1999.<br />

and 19 to 31 Pg by erosional processes (Table 6.5). While the historic loss from Gelisols or permafrost soils is<br />

zero, these soils, which contain a vast amount of SOC reserves, are vulnerable to projected warming and the<br />

attendant positive feedback.<br />

Estimates of the historic C loss are useful as a reference point for assessing the technical potential of C resequestration<br />

in soil. While the loss of SOC can be rapid, especially in soils of the tropical ecosystems, the rate<br />

of re-carbonization is extremely slow. The slow rate of re-sequestration is a major challenge to identifying<br />

appropriate land use and to promoting adoption of soil/water/animal/plant management systems that could<br />

create a positive soil/ecosystem C budget.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

117


6.2.7 | Future loss of SOC under climate change<br />

Projected changes in climate (temperature and precipitation) are likely to affect the SOC stock both directly<br />

and indirectly. Directly, the rate of decomposition by microbial processes is affected by both soil temperature<br />

and moisture regimes. Indirectly, changes in climate affect plant growth, net primary productivity, above<br />

and below-ground biomass, and the type and amount of residues with differential amounts of materials<br />

recalcitrance. Further, the rate and susceptibility to accelerated erosion, salinization and other degradation<br />

processes may be exacerbated by an increase in frequency of extreme events. Indeed, climate change can<br />

impact several soil forming factors, including rainfall, temperature, micro-organisms/biota and vegetation,<br />

thus affecting the rate of SOC accumulation (Jenny, 1930). Climate change may also alter species composition,<br />

and the rate of litter fall. However, disagreement exists regarding the effect of warming on SOC stock.<br />

The annual rate of litter return, on which the rate of SOC accretion depends, varies among biomes (White,<br />

1987; Grunwald, 1999). The rate of litterfall (Mg ha -1 yr -1 ) is estimated at 0.1 to 0.4 for alpine and arctic regions,<br />

2 - 4 for temperate grassland, 1.5 - 3 for coniferous forest, 1.5 - 4 for deciduous forest, 5 - 10 for tropical rainforest,<br />

and 1 to 2 for arable land (White, 1987). Increase in soil temperature may exponentially increase the rate of soil<br />

respiration (Tóth et al., 2007; Lenton and Huntingford, 2003). However, because of increase in the number and<br />

activity of soil fungi in the warmer soil, there may also be increase in the relative amount of lignin and other<br />

recalcitrant compounds (Simpson et al., 2007). The SOM decomposition is also more temperature-sensitive at<br />

low than at high temperature (Kirschbaum, 1995, 2000, 2006).<br />

Thus, knowledge about the temperature–sensitivity of diverse SOC fractions, and their change in the soil<br />

under climate change, is important. Change in temperature by 1º Celsius may decrease the turnover times of 4 -1 1<br />

percent and 8 -1 6 percent for the intermediate and stabilized fractions, respectively (Hakkenberg et al., 2008).<br />

The decomposition rate is also influenced by the presence of physicochemical protection mechanisms (Conant<br />

et al., 2011), especially occlusion within aggregates and by association with mineral surfaces (Freedman,<br />

2014). It is argued that CO 2<br />

emissions from soil response to climate warming are over-estimated, because the<br />

decomposition of old SOM is tolerant to temperature (Liski et al., 1999). Thus, the effects of warming on SOM<br />

decomposition are governed by complex and interactive factors, and are difficult to predict. Despite much<br />

research, no consensus has yet emerged on the temperature sensitivity of SOM decomposition (Davidson and<br />

Janssens, 2006).<br />

6.2.8 | Conclusions<br />

Global SOC stocks have been estimated at about 1 500 Pg C for the topmost 1 m. However, a large<br />

uncertainty attaches to this estimate, which cannot easily be assigned to a specific period in time. Local<br />

variations may also be high, for example for SOC stocks in arctic regions and peatlands. Estimates of SOC<br />

stocks below 1 m depth are still evolving, with a tendency for more recent estimates to be higher than previous<br />

values. Estimates of the historic loss of SOC pools are also highly variable, ranging from 40 to 537 Pg. The<br />

global loss of SOC pool since 1850 is estimated at about 66 ±12 Pg. The projected response of SOC stock to<br />

climate change is a debatable issue. While an increase in temperature may increase the rate of respiration at<br />

low soil temperature, it may also shift microbial populations to fungi, increase relative proportions of lignin<br />

and other recalcitrant fractions, and increase protective mechanisms such as aggregation and reaction with<br />

mineral surfaces.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

118


6.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination status and trends<br />

6.3.1 | Introduction<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> contamination as a result of anthropogenic activities has been a widespread problem globally (Bundschuh<br />

et al., 2012; DEA, 2001; EEA, 2014; Luo et al., 2009; SSR, 2010). <strong>Soil</strong> contamination can be local or diffuse. Local<br />

soil contamination occurs where intensive industrial activities, inadequate waste disposal, mining, military<br />

activities or accidents introduce excessive amounts of contaminants. Diffuse soil contamination is the<br />

presence of a substance or agent in the soil as a result of human activity and emitted from dispersed sources.<br />

Diffuse contamination occurs where emission, transformation and dilution of contaminants in other media<br />

have occurred prior to their transfer to soil. The three major pathways responsible for the introduction of<br />

diffuse contaminants into soil are atmospheric deposition, agriculture, and flood events. These pathways can<br />

also cause local contamination in some instances. Causes of diffuse contamination tend to be dominated by<br />

excessive nutrient and pesticide applications, heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and other inorganic<br />

contaminants. As a result, the relationship between the contaminant source and the level and spatial extent<br />

of soil contamination is indistinct.<br />

While some soil degradation processes are directly observable in the field (erosion, landslides, sealing or<br />

even decline of organic matter), soil contamination as well as soil compaction or decline in soil biodiversity<br />

cannot be directly assessed, which makes them an insidious hazard. Moreover, diffuse contamination is linked<br />

to many uncertainties. The diversity of contaminants (particularly of the persistent organic pollutants, which<br />

are in constant evolution due to agrochemical developments) and the transformation of organic compounds<br />

in soils by biological activity into diverse metabolites make soil surveys to identify contaminants difficult<br />

and expensive. The effects of soil contamination also depend on soil properties, as these have an impact<br />

on the mobility, bioavailability, residence time and levels of contaminants. Direct effects of pollutants may<br />

not be immediately revealed because of the capacity of soils to store, immobilize and degrade them. Effects<br />

can, however, suddenly emerge after changes such as changes in land use that may alter environmental<br />

conditions (Stigliani et al., 1991 - see also Chapter 7 on processes impacting service provision). Contaminants<br />

include inorganic compounds such as metallic trace-elements and radionuclides, and organic compounds<br />

like xenobiotic molecules. The application of some organic wastes to soils – for example, untreated biosolids<br />

– also increases the risk of spread of infectious diseases. A new challenge is that the so-called ‘chemicals of<br />

emerging concern’ (CECs) – for example, veterinary and human therapeutic agents such as antibiotics and<br />

hormones – are present in amendments added to soils, such as manures. These CECs can have an adverse<br />

effect on ecosystems and on human health (Jjemba, 2002; Osman, Rice and Codling, 2008; Jones and Graves,<br />

2010).<br />

6.3.2 | Global status of soil contamination<br />

In most developed countries, waste disposal and treatment, industrial and commercial activities,<br />

storage, transport spills on land, military operations, and nuclear operations are the key sources of local soil<br />

contamination. Management of local soil contamination requires surveys to seek out sites that are likely to be<br />

contaminated, site investigations where the actual extent of contamination and its environmental impacts<br />

are defined, and implementation of remedial and after-care measures. By contrast, diffuse soil contamination<br />

is much harder to manage: in many instances it is not directly apparent but it may cover very large areas and<br />

represent a substantial threat. Despite the fact that most developed countries have implemented long-term<br />

soil surveys, even these countries still lack a harmonized soil monitoring system, and the real extent of diffuse<br />

soil contamination is not known.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

119


According to the most recent data provided by the European Environmental Agency (EEA, 2014), total<br />

potentially contaminated sites in Europe are estimated to be more than 2.5 million, of which 340 000 are<br />

thought to be actually contaminated. Approximately one third of the high risk sites have been positively<br />

identified as contaminated, and of these only 15 percent have so far been successfully remediated (EEA, 2014).<br />

While trends vary across Europe, it is clear that the remediation of contaminated sites is still a significant<br />

undertaking. Waste disposal and industrial activities are the most important sources of soil contamination<br />

overall in Europe. The most frequent contaminants are heavy metals and mineral oils (EEA, 2014).<br />

In the United States, sites contaminated with complex hazardous substances that impact soil, groundwater<br />

or surface water are placed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). As of September 29, 2014, there<br />

were 1 322 final sites on the NPL. On 1 163 of these sites, measures to address the contamination threat<br />

have been completed. An additional 49 sites have been proposed. In addition, the Office of Solid Waste and<br />

Emergency Response (OSWER) has cleaned up over 540 000 sites and 9.3 million ha of contaminated land,<br />

all of which can be put back into use. In Canada, a total of 12 723 soil contaminated sites has been identified,<br />

with 1 699 sites related to surface soil contamination (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2014). The key soil<br />

contaminants include metals, petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).<br />

The pattern of contamination in Australia is similar to that of other developed countries. Industry, including<br />

the petroleum industry, mineral mining, chemical manufacture and processing facilities, and agricultural<br />

activities with their use of P fertilizer and pesticides, have caused soil contamination with heavy metals,<br />

hydrocarbons, mineral salts, particulates, etc. The total number of contaminated sites is estimated at 80 000<br />

across Australia (DECA, 2010), with approximately 1 000 actual or potentially contaminated sites in South<br />

Australia (SKM, 2013).<br />

Developing countries are undergoing significant industrialization. If appropriate legal and regulatory<br />

frameworks and enforcement capability are not developed, this may lead to soil contamination and pose risks<br />

to the environment and human health. In large conurbations, there is also a need for adequate provision of<br />

sanitation and drainage so that household wastes are collected and managed safely.<br />

Asian countries experience considerable contamination of agricultural soil and crops by trace elements, and<br />

this contamination is becoming a threat to human health and the long-term sustainability of food production<br />

in the contaminated areas. In China, it is estimated that nearly 20 million ha of farmland (approximately one<br />

fifth of China’s total farmland) is contaminated by heavy metals (Wei and Chen, 2001). This may result in a<br />

reduction of more than 10 million tons of food supplies each year in China (Wei and Chen, 2001). Atmospheric<br />

deposition (mainly from mining, smelting and fly ash) and livestock manures are the main sources of trace<br />

elements contaminating arable soil (Luo et al., 2009). Among the different trace elements contaminating<br />

Chinese agricultural soils, Cd is the biggest concern. Due to its high mobility in the soil (except in poorly drained<br />

soil where sulphides are present), it can be easily transferred to the food chain and so poses risks to human<br />

health. Arsenic is also naturally present in groundwater in many regions of Southeast Asia. This represents<br />

a threat to agriculture, particularly in rice paddy fields where anaerobic conditions prevail (Smedley, 2003;<br />

Hugh and Ravenscroft, 2009). Asia is also the largest contributor to the atmosphere of anthropogenic Hg,<br />

which originates from the chemical industry, from Hg mining and from gold mining (Li et al., 2009). All across<br />

Asia, areas under rapid economic development are experiencing moderate to severe contamination by heavy<br />

metals (Ng, 2010).<br />

In many parts of Latin America, the results of anthropogenic activities, such as tailings and smelting<br />

operations in mining areas, have resulted in arsenic contamination in the soil. These operations enhance the<br />

mobilization of arsenic and cause adverse environmental impacts (see Section 4.3). Also in Latin America, the<br />

problem of arsenic contamination in water has been identified in 14 of the continent’s 20 countries: Argentina,<br />

Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

120


and Uruguay. The number of exposed people in these countries is estimated to be about 14 million (Bundschuh<br />

et al., 2012; Castro de Esparza, 2006). It is also estimated that during the late 1980s and early 1990s, 3 000 to<br />

4 000 t of Hg were deposited in the Amazon basin as a result of artisanal gold-mining activities, mainly in<br />

Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador (de Lacerda, 2003). In addition, intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides<br />

in many parts of Latin America contributes to soil contamination and causes a range of environmental<br />

pollution and human health problems (UNEP, 2010).<br />

In Africa, soil contamination has resulted from mining, spills, and improper handling of waste (Gzik et<br />

al., 2003; SSR, 2010; EA, 2010). The Nigerian federal government reported more than 7 000 spills between<br />

1970 and 2000. In Botswana and Mali, over 10 000 tonnes of pesticides, including DDT, aldrin, dieldrin,<br />

chlordane and heptachlor, have leaked from damaged containers and contaminated the soil (SSR, 2010). <strong>Soil</strong><br />

contamination in the Near East and North Africa is linked to oil production and heavy mining. In arable land, a<br />

common source of soil pollution is the use of contaminated groundwater or wastewater for irrigation.<br />

6.3.3 | Trends and legislation<br />

In developed countries, legislation on contaminated land and the related regulatory mechanisms are well<br />

established. As a result, the extent of contaminated land is thoroughly reported. The European countries have<br />

created a common framework in the Thematic Strategy on <strong>Soil</strong> Protection (COM (2006) 231), which aims at<br />

sustainable use of soil, preservation of soil as a resource, and remediation of contaminated soil. The EC has<br />

also created networks such as CLARINET, NICOLE and SNOWMAN (Vicent, 2013). Investigations of suspected<br />

contaminated sites continue in Europe and as a result the total of contaminated sites listed is expected to<br />

increase by 50 percent by 2025 (EEA, 2007, 2012; EC, 2013). The number of remediated sites is expected to grow<br />

as well. In addition, regulation now requires industrial plants to control their wastes and prevent accidents,<br />

limiting the introduction of contaminants into the environment. As noted above, the United States has<br />

introduced a regulatory regime and has made significant progress on site clean-up.<br />

In Asia, early legislation on contaminated land management (CLM) focused on contamination of agricultural<br />

land caused by industrialization and urbanization. Thus Japan, Taiwan, Province of China and South Korea<br />

have developed comprehensive CLM frameworks of laws, regulations and guidelines. Other Asian countries,<br />

however, are still at early stages of developing a CLM framework (Ng, 2010).<br />

Atmospheric deposition (Section 4.4.1) is an important input of pollutants (Lofts et al., 2007) and air quality<br />

regulation to decrease the load of contaminants on soils is therefore important. In most developed countries,<br />

relevant legislation is well established. In the case of long-range atmospheric pollution, international<br />

agreements are needed. In this regard, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)<br />

was signed in 1979. Conceived in response to the detrimental impact of acid rain in Europe, the Convention<br />

entered into force in 1983. Over the past 30 years, the Convention has been extended by eight further protocols<br />

that target pollutants such as S, NOx, persistent organic pollutants, volatile organic compounds, ammonia<br />

and heavy metals. More recently, a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from the<br />

adverse effects of mercury - the 2013 Minamata Convention on Mercury - has been established.<br />

CECs require due attention and they can include, but are not limited to, nanoparticles, pharmaceuticals,<br />

personal care products, estrogen-like compounds, flame retardants, detergents, and some industrial<br />

chemicals (including those in products and packaging) with potential significant impact on human health<br />

and aquatic life (Jones and Graves, 2010). Electronic waste (also referred to as ‘e-waste’) is of great concern<br />

given the increasing volumes generated each year, the hazardous nature of some of the components, and the<br />

exportation of this waste from industrialized countries to recycling centres in China, India and Pakistan (UNEP<br />

DEWA/GRID-Europe, 2005). This chain risks violating the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary<br />

Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which was adopted in 1989 and came into force in 1992.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

121


Recently some countries have implemented policies and programmes to encourage waste minimization.<br />

These programmes of ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ make producers responsible for the costs of<br />

managing their products at the end of their life. This approach is expected to encourage the manufacture of<br />

more environmentally-friendly electronic products (UNEP DEWA/GRID-Europe, 2005).<br />

6.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification status and trends<br />

6.4.1 | Processes and causes of acidification<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidity increases with the build-up of hydrogen (H+) and aluminium (Al 3<br />

+) cations in the soil or when<br />

base cations such as potassium (K+), calcium (Ca 2<br />

+), magnesium (Mg 2<br />

+) and sodium (Na+) are leached and<br />

replaced by hydrogen or aluminium (Bolan, Hedley and White, 1991; Helyar and Porter, 1989; von Uexküll and<br />

Mutert, 1995). The main causes of soil acidification are: (1) long term rainfall that results in on-site leaching<br />

of base cations; (2) draining of potentially acid sulphate soils; (3) acid deposition when urbanization,<br />

industrialization, mining, construction or dredging release acid substances into the air or water, causing offsite<br />

acidification; (4) excessive application of ammonium-based fertilizers (e.g. ammonium sulphate) as part<br />

of intensive agriculture cropping practices; and (5) deforestation and other land use practices that remove all<br />

harvested materials, often resulting in a drop of the pH in the topsoil. Only the first of these five causes is a<br />

natural phenomenon; all others are human-induced.<br />

In natural ecosystems, soils become more acid with time. Consequently old soils, particularly in humid<br />

climates or those developed from acidic rocks, are more weathered and acidic than younger soils or soils of dry<br />

climates or those developed from more basic rocks (Helyar and Porter, 1989; von Uexküll and Mutert, 1995).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification is of the greatest concern in soils that have a low capacity to buffer the decrease in pH and in<br />

soils that already have a low pH, such as acid soils in highly weathered tropical areas (Harter, 2007; Johnson,<br />

Turner and Kelly, 1982). <strong>Soil</strong> texture and soil organic matter content play an important role in the buffering<br />

capacity of a soil and hence in determining how prone a soil is to acidification (Helyar and Porter, 1989; Steiner<br />

et al., 2007). Light sandy soils poor in organic matter are the least buffered against acidification.<br />

Acid sulphate soils contain metal sulphides which, when exposed to oxidation, produce sulphuric acid.<br />

Inland, acid sulphate soils form naturally in aquatic ecosystems and also as a consequence of human-induced<br />

changes to land use and hydrology. Structures regulating water flow such as dams, weirs and locks prevent<br />

flushing of metals, salts and organic matter, and promote the build-up of acid sulphate soils. Acid sulphate<br />

soils also form in coastal areas and are common in mangrove forests, saltmarsh, floodplains, and salt- and<br />

freshwater wetlands (Lin and Melville, 1994; Pons, van Breemen and Driessen, 1982; Pannier, 1979). Due to the<br />

abundance of metal sulphides in rocks, mining activities also foster the formation of acid sulphate soils (Dent,<br />

1986).<br />

The atmospheric deposition of sulphur dioxide (SO 2<br />

), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ammonia (NH 3<br />

) leads to<br />

acid deposition. This can affect not only areas near to the urban, industrial and mining sites where the oxides<br />

are produced and released into the environment, but also sites located far away (Fanning et al., 2004; Menz<br />

and Seip, 2004; Mylona, 1996; Orndorff and Daniels, 2004). The term ‘acid deposition’ includes both wet and<br />

dry (gaseous) precipitation, usually in the form of acid rain or fog. Besides affecting the chemistry of soil and<br />

water resources, acid deposition directly harms plants and fish. Acid deposition is currently a major concern in<br />

fast-developing countries such as China (Chen, 2007).<br />

Land use and soil management play a crucial role in determining the chemical characteristics of the soil.<br />

Intensive farming practices that employ large inputs of nitrogen fertilizers and remove large quantities of<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

122


products increase soil acidity (Barak et al., 1997; Bolan, Hedley and White, 1991). Indeed, the conversion of<br />

ammonium to nitrate releases hydrogen ions (H+) into the soil solution that can potentially lower the soil pH.<br />

This is a problem in soils with low ability to buffer the increase in H+ such as those poor in lime and negatively<br />

charged organic matter and clay. Harvesting has the potential to increase soil acidity by removing base cations<br />

from the soil. This is an issue in both agricultural and forested areas wherever large amounts of biomass are<br />

removed by crop harvesting and deforestation (Cavelier et al., 1999; von Uexküll and Mutert, 1995).<br />

6.4.2 | Impact of soil acidification<br />

On acid soils (pH < 5.5), crops and pastures suffer from the resulting increased phytotoxicity (Al, Fe, Mn, etc.),<br />

from the reduced availability of nutrients, and from decreased microbiological activity (Cronan and Grigal,<br />

1995; Robson and Abbott, 1989; Slattery and Hollier, 2002; Sverdrup and Warfvinge, 1993; Whitfield et al., 2010).<br />

Onsite soil acidification reduces net primary productivity and carbon sequestration by accelerating leaching<br />

of nutrients such as manganese, calcium, magnesium and potassium, resulting in nutrient deficiencies for<br />

plants (Haynes and Swift, 1986). On-site soil acidification is also responsible for the development of subsoil<br />

acidity (Tang, 2004), for the breakdown and subsequent loss of clay materials from the soil (Chen, 2007),<br />

and for the erosion which results from decreased groundcover (Slattery and Hollier, 2002). <strong>Soil</strong> acidification<br />

also leads to off-site effects such as surface water acidification through sediment losses, and groundwater<br />

enrichment of soluble metals. In turn, these processes mobilize heavy metals into water resources and the<br />

food chain (Driscoll et al., 2003; Reuss and Johnson, 1986; Schindler et al., 1980; Slattery and Hollier, 2002;<br />

Voegelin, Barmettler and Kretzschmar, 2003).<br />

6.4.3 | Responses to soil acidification<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification is an insidious process. It develops slowly and, if not corrected by lime applications<br />

for example, can continue until the soil is irreparably damaged (Edmeades and Ridley, 2003; Liu and Hue,<br />

2001; Slattery and Hollier, 2002). Biological recovery can potentially be improved by an increase in pH and<br />

acid-neutralising capacity (ANC) (Marschner and Noble, 2000). Of main concern is subsoil acidity, which is<br />

particularly difficult to correct with conventional methods (Farina, Channon and Thibaud, 2000; Liu and Hue,<br />

2001; Hue and Licudine, 1999). Actions to mitigate global warming can reduce the emission of pollutants such<br />

as sulphur dioxide (SO 2<br />

) which contribute to soil acidification (NADP, 2014; Smith, Pitcher and Wigley, 2001;<br />

Vestreng et al., 2007). However, soil response to decreases in acid deposition is slow and acid-affected sites<br />

may require many decades to recover (Zhao et al., 2009).<br />

6.4.4 | Global status and trends of soil acidification<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidity is a serious constraint to food production worldwide. Traditionally it has been counteracted by<br />

applying lime to the topsoil but little could be done to increase the pH of the subsoil. Programmes to improve<br />

soil pH have been undertaken largely in developed countries, which are able to implement soil management<br />

plans to preserve soil properties and to bear the cost of lime to buffer soil acidity. However, even in developed<br />

counties, for example Australia, there have been cases where subsoil acidity increased due to failures in<br />

correcting topsoil acidity. In developing countries the situation is more stark as the use of lime is constrained<br />

by poverty. As a result, the farmed area affected by acidification is on the rise (Sumner and Noble, 2003). <strong>Soil</strong><br />

acidification affects not only agricultural areas but also forests and grasslands.<br />

According to Sumner and Noble (2003), topsoil acidity (pH


Estimated dominant topsoil pH<br />

< 4.5 4.5 - 5.5 5.5 - 7.2 7.2 - 8.5 > 8.5 Water Rocks outcrops, glaciers, salt flat<br />

Figure 6.8 Estimated dominant topsoil pH. Source: FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC, 2009.<br />

The main causes of soil acidification vary by region:<br />

• Regions where soil acidification occurs because of soil texture – parts of North America, Southeast,<br />

East and South Asia (Aherne and Posch, 2013; Eswaran et al., 1996; Hicks et al. 2008; Shamshuddin et<br />

al., 2014; Ouimet et al., 2006)<br />

• Regions where proximity to deltas and coastal plains is a primary cause – parts of West Africa (Bullock<br />

et al., 1996),<br />

• Regions where weather conditions are a main cause – parts of Africa and Asia (Breuning-Madsen and<br />

Awadzi, 2005; Drees, Manu and Wilding, 1993; Eswaran et al., 1996; Kottek et al., 2006; Wilke, Duke and<br />

Jimoh, 1984),<br />

• Regions where acid deposition is an important factor – parts of East Asia and North America (Aherne<br />

and Posch, 2013; Quinn, 1989; Wolt, 1981)<br />

• Regions where the massive application of ammonium-based fertilizers plays an important role – parts<br />

of East and South Asia (Guo et al., 2010; Wang, Zhang and Zhang, 2010).<br />

In Europe, soil acidification is an issue only in some highly urbanised and industrialized hotspots (EEA,<br />

2010; Kopáček et al., 2004; Menz and Seip, 2004; Moser and Hohensinn, 1983). In the Southwest Pacific, soil<br />

acidification is of concern only in intensively farmed areas (Brennan, Bolland and Bowden, 2004; Hartemink,<br />

1998; Xu et al., 2002; Lockwood et al., 2003; NLWRA, 2001). Thus soil acidification affects all regions to some<br />

extent, but it is of main concern in poor and developing countries which are growing rapidly but are unable to<br />

buffer the decrease in soil pH through conventional means.<br />

6.5 | Global status of soil salinization and sodification<br />

6.5.1 | Status and extent<br />

Salt-affected soils occur in more than 100 countries and their worldwide extent is estimated at about 1<br />

billion ha. Salt-affected soils include those affected by salinity, where the electrical conductivity of the soil<br />

exceeds 4dSm–1; and those affected by sodicity, where the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) exceeds 6<br />

(Ghassemi, Jakeman and Nix, 1995). Saline soils contain excessive soluble salts, mainly sodium chloride (NaCl)<br />

and sodium sulphate (Na 2<br />

SO 4<br />

) or other neutral salts. These salts increase osmotic pressure, diminish water<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

124


availability and inhibit plant growth. Sodic soils generally have a low salt content but a high ESP, which causes<br />

dispersion of clay particles and results in deterioration of the soil structure. These soils generally have low air<br />

and water permeability and a pH above 8.2.<br />

Salinity problems are encountered in all climates and are a consequence of both natural (primary) and<br />

human-induced (secondary) processes. <strong>Soil</strong> salinity and sodicity problems are more common where rainfall<br />

is insufficient to leach salts and excess sodium ions out of the rhizosphere. Salt-affected soils often occur<br />

on irrigated lands, especially in arid and semiarid regions, where annual rainfall is insufficient to meet the<br />

evapotranspiration needs of plants and to provide for leaching of salt. In humid areas, soluble salts are carried<br />

down through the soil profile by percolating rainwater and ultimately are transported to sea.<br />

Although salt-affected soils are widespread and an increasingly severe problem, no accurate recent<br />

statistics are available on their global extent. The best available estimates suggest that about 412 million ha are<br />

affected by salinity and 618 million ha by sodicity (UNEP, 1992), but this figure does not distinguish areas where<br />

salinity and sodicity occur together. The <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World (FAO/UNESCO, 1980) depicted a similar extent<br />

Continent<br />

Saline soils<br />

(million ha)<br />

Sodic soils<br />

(million ha)<br />

Total<br />

(million ha)<br />

Africa 122.9 86.7 209.6<br />

South Asia 82.3 1.8 84.1<br />

North and Central Asia 91.5 120.2 211.7<br />

Southeast Asia 20.0 - 20.0<br />

South America 69.5 59.8 129.3<br />

North America 6.2 9.6 15.8<br />

Mexico/Central America 2.0 - 2.0<br />

Australasia 17.6 340.0 357.6<br />

World total 412.0 618.0 1030<br />

Table 6.6 Distribution of salt-affected soils in drylands different continents of the world. Source: UNEP, 1992.<br />

of 953 Mha affected by salinity (352 million ha) and sodicity (580 million ha). Table 6.6 shows the distribution<br />

of dryland salinity in different continents.<br />

Human-induced salinity, mainly caused by irrigation without adequate drainage, affects a much smaller<br />

area than natural salinity. According to GLASOD, the extent of human-induced salinity is about 76 million ha<br />

(Oldeman, Hakkeling and Sombroek, 1991) of which 52.7 million ha occurs in Asia. In Europe, significant parts<br />

of Spain and areas in Italy, Hungary, Greece, Portugal, France and Slovakia are also affected by human-induced<br />

salinization.<br />

In 2006 the global area equipped for irrigation stood at 301 million ha. At present in developing countries,<br />

irrigated agriculture covers about one fifth of all arable land, but accounts for nearly half of all crop production<br />

and 60 percent of cereal production. About 70 percent of the world area equipped for irrigation is in Asia where<br />

it accounts for 39 percent of the cultivated area. India and China each have 62 million ha equipped for irrigation<br />

(FAO, 2011). An estimated 60 million ha (or 20 percent of the total irrigated area) are affected by soil salinity,<br />

of which 35 million ha are located in four countries e.g. Pakistan (3.2 million ha), India (20 million ha), China (7<br />

million ha) and the United States (5.2 million ha). Other countries with large amounts of salt-affected lands<br />

in irrigation districts include Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Mexico, Syria and Turkey<br />

(Squires and Glenn, 2011).<br />

Australia has the largest extent of naturally sodic soils of any continent (Table 6.5).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

125


6.5.2 | Causes of soil salinity<br />

The distribution of salt-affected soils varies geographically with climate, landscape type, agricultural<br />

activities, irrigation methods and policies related to land management.<br />

Natural causes of salinity and sources of salt<br />

1. Rock weathering: Significant quantities of sodium, and to a lesser extent chloride, occur widely in the<br />

parent rocks from which soils form. Over time, rock weathering can lead to appreciable salt accumulation<br />

in soils if leaching is restricted. Rock weathering is the primary source of salt in seawater.<br />

2. Sea water and accession of salt in marine sediments: Saline soils can form from sediments and parent materials<br />

that were once under the sea. Likewise, the salts can be due to tidal inundation. Typical examples include<br />

the pseudo-delta of Senegal and the Gambia and in the Philippines where coastal tideland reclamation<br />

has created about 0.4 million ha of agricultural salt-affected soils. In the United Arab Emirates, areas<br />

along the coastal sabkha (salt marshes or lagoonal deposits) are highly salinized (28.8 dS m -1 ). In the<br />

coastal region of the Abu Dhabi Emirate, salinity is more than 200 dS m -1 (Abdelfattah and Shahid, 2007)<br />

3. Atmospheric deposition: Salt derived from the sea, either deposited via rain or dry fallout, is the primary<br />

source of salt across large areas: for example, many millions of hectares in southern Australia. In arid<br />

areas, salt can also be derived from dry lake beds and then blown considerable distances by wind (e.g.<br />

Eurasia and parts of Australia).<br />

Human-induced causes<br />

1. The management of land and water resources is responsible for the development of human-induced<br />

saline and sodic soils. The main causes are:<br />

2. Poor drainage facilities which induce a rise of the groundwater table. This is a major cause of soil<br />

salinization in India, Pakistan, China, Kenya and the Central Asian countries.<br />

3. The use of brackish groundwater for irrigation. This is a major cause of secondary salinization in parts<br />

of Asia, Europe and Africa.<br />

4. The intrusion of seawater in coastal areas, for example in Bangladesh.<br />

5. Poor on-farm water management and cultural practices in irrigated agriculture.<br />

6. Continuous irrigation over very long periods, particularly in the Middle East.<br />

7. Replacement of deep rooted perennial vegetation with shallower rooted annual crops and pastures<br />

that use less water leading to the rise of saline groundwater, for example southern Australia.<br />

6.5.4 | Trends and impacts<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> salinity is becoming a significant problem worldwide. From the very scattered information on the<br />

extent and characteristics of salt-affected soils, salinity and sodicity are rapidly increasing in many regions,<br />

both in irrigated and non-irrigated areas. Increasing soil salinity problems are taking an estimated 0.3 to 1.5<br />

million ha of farmland out of production each year and decreasing the production potential of another 20 to<br />

46 million ha. The annual cost of salt-induced land degradation was estimated in 1990 at US$ 264 ha−1. By<br />

2013, the inflation-adjusted cost of salt-induced land degradation was reported as US$ 441 ha–1 (Qadir et al.,<br />

2014).<br />

6.5.5 | Responses<br />

There are many available responses to contain the salinity threat. These include: (1) direct leaching of salts;<br />

(2) planting salt tolerant varieties; (3) domestication of native wild halophytes for use in agro-pastoral systems;<br />

(4) phytoremediation (bioremediation); (5) chemical amelioration; and (6) the use of organic amendments.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

126


In several Asian countries, a blend of engineering, reclamation and biological approaches has been adopted<br />

to address salinity and waterlogging problems. In Pakistan, engineering solutions included large-scale Salinity<br />

Control and Reclamation Projects (SCARPs), which covered 8 million ha at an estimated cost of US$2 billion<br />

(Qureshi et al., 2008). Two big drainage water disposal projects were also undertaken. Measures to address the<br />

saline soil problem included leaching of salts by excess irrigation, use of chemicals (such as gypsum and acids),<br />

the addition of organic matter, and biological measures such as salt-tolerant plants, grasses, and shrubs.<br />

Improvements in on-farm water and crop management have also been practiced. In North America,<br />

changes in land use and management practices have reduced the risk of salinization and helped to improve<br />

soil health and agri-environmental sustainability.<br />

In Iraq and Egypt, surface and subsurface drainage systems have been installed to control rising water<br />

tables and arrest soil salinity. In Iran, Syria and other Gulf countries, crop-based management, and fertilizers<br />

are used to combat salinization (Qadir, Qureshi and Cheraghi, 2007). In Iran, Haloxylon aphyllum, Haloxylon<br />

persicum, Petropyrum euphratica and Tamarix aphylla are potential species for saline environments<br />

(Djavanshir, Dasmalchi and Emararty, 1996). Also in Iran, Atriplex has been shown to be a potential fodder<br />

shrub in the arid lands which could bring annual income as high as US$ 200 ha -1 (Koocheki, 2000; Nejad and<br />

Koocheki, 2000). Breeding of salt tolerant crop varieties (e.g. wheat, barley, alfalfa, sorghum etc.) is also a<br />

recognized management response for saline environments. However, most results have been obtained in<br />

controlled environments, with few real field results so far.<br />

The use of organic amendments in Egypt showed that the mixed application of farmyard manure and gypsum<br />

(1:1) significantly reduces soil salinity and sodicity (Abd Elrahman et al., 2012). Recently, phytoremediation or<br />

plant based reclamation has been introduced in the Near East region. In Sudan good responses for control<br />

of sodicity have been obtained through phytoremediation. The production of H+ proton in the rhizosphere<br />

during N-fixation from legumes such as the hyacinth bean (Dolichos lablab L.) removed as much Na+ as<br />

gypsum application. This indicates the importance of this technology in calcite dissolution of calcareous salt<br />

affected soils (Mubarak and Nortcliff, 2010).<br />

6.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity status and trends<br />

6.6.1 | Introduction<br />

Over the last few decades the importance of soil biota for terrestrial functioning and ecosystem services has<br />

emerged as an important focus for soil science research. Current evidence shows that soil biota constitute an<br />

important living community in the soil system, providing a wide range of essential services for the sustainable<br />

functioning of global terrestrial ecosystems and thereby impacting human wellbeing, directly and indirectly<br />

(van der Putten et al., 2004). <strong>Soil</strong> organisms (e.g. bacteria, fungi, protozoa, insects, worms, other invertebrates<br />

and mammals) shape the metabolic capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and many soil functions. Below-ground<br />

biodiversity represents one of the largest reservoirs of biodiversity on earth (Bardgett and van der Putten,<br />

2014). Essential services provided by soil biota include: regulating nutrient cycles; controlling the dynamics of<br />

soil organic matter; supporting soil carbon sequestration; regulating greenhouse gas emissions; modifying<br />

soil physical structure and soil water regimes; enhancing the amount and efficiency of nutrient acquisition<br />

by vegetation through symbiotic associations and nitrogen fixation by bacteria; and influencing plant and<br />

animal health through the interaction of pathogens and pests with their natural predators and parasites.<br />

Fungi and bacteria are important decomposers in the soil. They are remarkably efficient. The smaller the<br />

pieces to be decomposed, the faster these microorganisms are able to do their job. Organic waste such as<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

127


leaf matter and the droppings of herbivores first feed a host of small animals including insects, earthworms<br />

and other small invertebrates which live in the plant litter. The combined fauna break up the organic matter,<br />

digesting part of it, and thus facilitating the task of the microorganisms and invertebrates that complete<br />

the process of decomposition. In turn, soil macro-fauna affect soil organic matter dynamics through organic<br />

matter incorporation, decomposition and the formation of stable aggregates that protect organic matter<br />

against rapid decomposition. Successive decomposition of dead material and modified organic matter results<br />

in the formation of a more complex organic matter called humus, which affects soil properties by increasing<br />

soil aggregation and aggregate stability, increasing the cation-exchange capacity (the ability to attract and<br />

retain nutrients), and increasing the availability of N, P and other nutrients.<br />

Many scientists have reported the role of macro-fauna in the accumulation of soil organic matter. For<br />

example the work by Snyder, Baas and Hendrix (2009), showed that millipedes and earthworms, both by<br />

themselves and taken together, reduce particulate organic matter. In addition, earthworms create significant<br />

shifts in soil aggregates from the 2000–250 and 250–53 µm fractions to the > 2000 µm size class. Earthworminduced<br />

soil aggregation was lessened in the 0-2 cm layer in the presence of millipedes. Further, Hoeksema,<br />

Lussenhop and Teeri (2000) found that in high-N soil with twice-ambient CO 2<br />

there was a higher density of<br />

predator/omnivores, lower diversity, and a larger value of Bonger’s Maturity Index compared to ambient CO 2<br />

.<br />

In this experiment, fine root biomass and turnover were significantly greater under elevated CO 2<br />

. This indicates<br />

higher vigour in plant root development and growth and hence increased carbon sequestration conditioned<br />

by enhanced soil biota activity.<br />

Studies also show the role of soil biota (including fungi, bacteria and plant parasitic nematodes) as<br />

pathogens and parasites or herbivores in decreasing root and plant productivity or reducing fruit quality.<br />

Recent research has focussed on the use of nematode and fungal resistant plant species or of other soil<br />

organisms as suppressive agents to modify the pathogens.<br />

6.6.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> biota and land use<br />

Losses in soil biodiversity have been demonstrated to affect multiple ecosystem functions including plant<br />

diversity, decomposition, nutrient retention and nutrient cycling (Wagg et al., 2014). Links between aboveground<br />

and below-ground communities (Wardle et al., 2004; De Deyn and van der Putten, 2005; Bardgett<br />

and van der Putten, 2014) suggest that factors affecting above-ground extinction may also be affecting soil<br />

organisms.<br />

Agricultural intensification, in particular, may reduce soil biodiversity, leading to decreased food-web<br />

complexity and fewer functional groups (Tsiafouli et al., 2015). Other driving forces that influence biodiversity<br />

in agricultural soils include the influence of crops/plants, fertilizers and pH, tillage practices, crop residue<br />

retention, pesticides, herbicides and pollution (Breure et al., 2004; Bardgett and van der Putten, 2014). <strong>Soil</strong><br />

biological and physical properties (e.g. temperature, pH, and water-holding characteristics) and microhabitat<br />

are altered when natural habitat is converted to agricultural production (Crossley et al., 1992; Bardgett and<br />

van der Putten, 2014). Changes in these soil properties may be reflected in the distribution and diversity of soil<br />

meso fauna. Organisms adapted to high levels of physical disturbance become dominant within agricultural<br />

communities, thereby reducing richness and diversity of soil fauna (Paoletti et al., 1993).<br />

The management practices used in many agro-ecosystems (e.g. monocultures, extensive use of tillage,<br />

chemical inputs) degrade the fragile web of community interactions between pests and their natural enemies.<br />

The intensification of agricultural management may result in increased incidence of pests and diseases,<br />

with numerous studies reporting declines in the biodiversity of soil fauna (Decaens and Jimenez, 2002;<br />

Eggleton et al., 2002). In addition, the contribution of soil fauna globally to organic matter decomposition<br />

rates may be highly dependent on the temperature and moisture of an ecosystem (Wall et al., 2008). This<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

128


underlines the need for global-scale assessments. In a global study of soil fungi using 365 soil samples from<br />

natural ecosystems, Tedersoo et al. (2014) found that distance from the equator and annual precipitation had<br />

considerable effect on fungal species richness. They also identified various other controls on soil fungi and this<br />

is starting to provide a benchmark for assessing the impacts of human activities on an important component<br />

of soil biodiversity.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> management strongly influences soil biodiversity, resulting in changes in abundance of individual<br />

species. Using a soil biodiversity pressure index calculation from the European <strong>Soil</strong> Data Centre, Gardi,<br />

Jeffery and Saltelli (2013) estimated that 56 percent of soils within the European Union have some degree of<br />

threat to soil biodiversity. Based on a questionnaire completed by 20 experts, the study found that the main<br />

anthropogenic pressures on soil biodiversity are (in order of importance): (1) intensive human exploitation; (2)<br />

reduced soil organic matter; (3) habitat disturbance; (4) soil sealing; (5) soil pollution; (6) land-use change; (7)<br />

soil compaction; (8) soil erosion; (9) habitat fragmentation; (10) climate change; (11) invasive species; and (12)<br />

GMO pollution (Gardi, Jeffery and Saltelli, 2013).<br />

There is some experimental evidence that there may be threshold levels of soil biodiversity below which<br />

functions decline (e.g. Van der Heijden et al., 1998; Liiri et al., 2002; Setälä and McLean, 2004). However, in<br />

many instances this is at experimentally prescribed levels of diversity that rarely prevail in nature. Although<br />

some studies demonstrate some functional redundancy in soil communities (e.g. Setälä, Berg and Jones,<br />

2005), high biodiversity within trophic groups may be advantageous since the group is likely to function more<br />

efficiently under a variety of environmental circumstances, due to an inherently wider potential. In a synthesis<br />

of diversity-function relationships of soil biodiversity focusing on carbon cycling, Nielsen et al., (2011) concluded<br />

that although there is considerable functional redundancy in soil communities for general processes, change<br />

may readily have an impact on specialized processes. However, data to support this conclusion are still limited.<br />

More diverse systems may be more resilient to perturbation since, if a proportion of components are removed<br />

or compromised in some way, others that prevail will be able to compensate (Kibblewhite, Ritz and Swift,<br />

2008).<br />

6.6.3 | Conclusions<br />

A comprehensive global-assessment on below-ground biodiversity has yet to be carried out. Although there<br />

is a Global <strong>Soil</strong> Biodiversity Atlas (EU/JRC, in press), no benchmark values exist on a global scale. This makes it<br />

difficult to quantify changes or future losses that may result from natural or anthropogenic-induced changes.<br />

Although progress is being made, few monitoring programs exist that quantify soil biodiversity across regions<br />

and at multiple trophic levels, especially outside of Europe. Regarding the threats to soil biodiversity and the<br />

effects on ecosystem functioning, more comparative and coordinated studies (from local to global scales) are<br />

needed across all ecosystems. These studies should quantify threats and determine the consequences of soil<br />

biodiversity loss to ecosystem functions, as well as the effects of interactions between threats. In addition,<br />

there is a need for standardization of methods in soil biodiversity studies so that multiple datasets can be<br />

synthesized and benchmark values for global soil biodiversity may be established. The use of DNA-based<br />

approaches is accelerating the speed at which data is being collected for all organisms. However, although<br />

sequencing data must be deposited into a public database (e.g. Genbank) before publication, the majority of<br />

morphological data still remains inaccessible and hence largely unavailable for meta-analysis. International<br />

initiatives such as the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Biodiversity Initiative 2 , ECOFINDERS, and the EU-sponsored Global <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Biodiversity Atlas are steps in the right direction but a common database of soil biodiversity data for both<br />

morphological and molecular data is still needed (Orgiazzi et al., 2015).<br />

2 www.globalsoilbiodiversity.org<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

129


Figure 6.9 Historical and predicted shift of the urban/rural population ratio. Source: UN, 2008.<br />

6.7 | <strong>Soil</strong> sealing: status and trends<br />

For millennia, the vast majority of people lived a rural life, largely dependent on agriculture and other rural<br />

occupations. Only over the last two centuries has the ratio between the urban and non-urban population<br />

started to change rapidly. In 1800, only 3 percent of the world’s population lived in cities; in 1900 14 percent,<br />

47 percent in 2000, 50 percent in 2007, and 54 percent in 2014. The proportion of the urban population is<br />

expected to rise to 66 percent by 2050 (Figure 6.9).<br />

The world’s urban population is growing and cities are expanding in order to accommodate the increasing<br />

population and economic activity. It is not known with any certainty what share of the Earth’s land surface (ca.<br />

144 million km 2 ) is now occupied by cities or how much land will be required to accommodate the expected urban<br />

expansion (Potere et al., 2009). One of the most accurate estimates of the extent of urban areas at global scale,<br />

based on the use of MODIS satellite data at a resolution of 500 m, indicates for the year 2000 an area of 657 000 km 2<br />

(Potere et al., 2009), equivalent to 0.45 percent of the Earth’s land surface. Urbanization is an important contributor<br />

to regional and global environmental change (Foley et al., 2005, Ellis and Ramankutty, 2008). The growth of cities has<br />

a vast impact on the landscape and significant impact on soil resources (Chen, 2007; Gardi et al., 2014).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

130


Figure 6.10 Urbanisation of the best agricultural soils.<br />

Between 1990 and 2000, the total extent of urban areas worldwide increased by 58 000 km 2 . During this period,<br />

2.8 percent of Europe’s total land was affected by land use change, including a significant increase in urban land. Of<br />

the total land take in the EU between 1990 and 2000, 71 percent was for agriculture. Between 2000 and 2006, the<br />

equivalent figure was only 53 percent. Had the land taken for urban expansion been devoted to agriculture instead,<br />

the land would have produced more than 6 Mt of wheat. More generally, the best quality soil in alluvial plains is often<br />

sealed by expanding cities and the rate of conversion is expected to increase rapidly, especially in developing countries.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

131


The term ‘soil sealing’ is defined as the permanent covering of the soil surface with an impermeable material.<br />

Urbanisation affects the inner urban ecosystem as well as the neighbouring ecosystems. Besides the economic<br />

and social effects, negative environmental effects are predominantly linked to land consumption, the loss of high<br />

quality agricultural soil (Figure 6.10), the destruction of habitat, fragmentation of existing ecosystems, increased fuel<br />

consumption, air, water and soil pollution, and the alteration of microclimate.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> sealing is in practice equivalent to total soil loss – virtually all services and functions are lost except<br />

the carrying capacity as a platform for supporting infrastructure. The main negative impacts on ecosystem<br />

services include: virtually total loss of food and fibre production; a significant decrease or total loss of the soil’s<br />

water retention, neutralization and purification capacities; the loss of the carbon sequestration capacity; and<br />

a significant decrease in the ability to provide (micro) climate regulation. The results include the loss of habitat<br />

for soil organisms, loss of soil biodiversity and nutrient cycling, and often a diminished landscape and natural<br />

heritage.<br />

Urban expansion is, of course, both beneficial and essential. Historically, the beginning of the most<br />

important civilizations was associated with both the development of agriculture and the creation of urban<br />

settlements. As early as 3000 BC, cities had arisen in the Fertile Crescent, on the banks of Nile, in the Indus<br />

River valley and along major rivers in China. However, the very rapid urban expansion of recent times is creating<br />

the need for trade-offs, including decisions regarding soil health and the rate of soil sealing.<br />

6.8 | <strong>Soil</strong> nutrient balance changes: status and trends<br />

6.8.1 | Introduction<br />

Though changes in soil nutrient balances may possibly affect all types of terrestrial ecosystems, rapid<br />

changes are more likely to occur in managed ecosystems as a result of the export of biomass or the addition<br />

of nutrients to sustain productivity. These managed ecosystems include cropland, intensively or extensively<br />

grazed rangelands or meadows, and forests. Monitoring changes in soil nutrient content is of particular<br />

relevance in managed ecosystems because it provides a means to evaluate future changes in the ability of soils<br />

to maintain their ecosystemic functions. On the one hand, negative balances (‘nutrient mining’) ultimately<br />

translate into crop nutrient deficiencies (, food production deficits and human nutritional imbalances. On the<br />

other hand, positive balances may lead to negative environmental and health externalities. Eutrophication,<br />

increased frequency and severity of algal blooms, hypoxia and fish kills and loss of habitat and biodiversity<br />

have been related to excessive inputs of N and P into fresh and coastal waters. Excess application of N has<br />

also lead to widespread contamination of groundwater by NO 3<br />

. Gaseous emissions of ammonia and nitrous<br />

oxide may also degrade air quality and contribute to acidification, eutrophication, ground-level ozone and<br />

climate change (Oenema, 2004; Chadwick et al., 2011). In addition, strongly positive balances may reflect<br />

poor economic management of managed ecosystems. Nutrient balances can thus be viewed as indicators of<br />

sustainability of human-induced land use changes and land use practices.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> nutrients include the macronutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca),<br />

magnesium (Mg) and sulphur (S). In addition, the soil supplies micronutrients (boron, copper, iron,<br />

manganese, chloride, molybdenum, zinc), whose concentrations in plants are typically one or two orders of<br />

magnitude less than those of macronutrients. In most cases, N, P and K taken individually or in combination<br />

are the most limiting nutrients for plant growth. This section will therefore focus on these three elements. In<br />

soils, these nutrients may be present in different pools. Because the amount of nutrients in certain pools may<br />

vary strongly and erratically over short time intervals, stocks and mass balances are generally calculated on<br />

the basis of total nutrient content, without distinction among different forms (Roy et al., 2003).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

132


Figure 6.11 Major components of the soil nutrient balance.<br />

The red discontinuous line marks the soil volume over which the mass balance is calculated. Green arrows correspond to inputs and<br />

red arrows to losses. ΔS represents the change in nutrient stock.<br />

6.8.2 | Principles and components of soil nutrient balance calculations<br />

Because the magnitude of the nutrient fluxes is often small compared to the total stock of nutrients in the<br />

soil profile, changes in soil nutrient stocks can be rather slow and difficult to detect over short time scales<br />

(< decades). Hence calculating nutrient balances from nutrient flows rather than from changes in nutrient<br />

stocks has been preferred in many studies (Figure 6.11).<br />

Table 6.6 lists the main inputs and outputs used for calculating the mass balances of N, P and K. Inorganic<br />

amendments are mostly composed of mineral fertilizers, but also comprise urine or minerals contained in<br />

irrigation water. Organic amendments include liquid, semi-solid or solid manures, compost, mulching<br />

material not produced on-site, and household refuse. It also includes faeces dropped by animals. In systems<br />

such as urban gardening, the re-use of waste water may also input organic compounds. Biological fixation by<br />

bacteria is restricted to N. Wet deposition refers to nutrients supplied with rainwater, whereas dry deposition<br />

refers to nutrients deposited as dust and aerosols. Dry deposition is a particularly important phenomenon<br />

in the case of K in areas downwind of major dust producing areas (e.g. West Africa;). Sedimentation refers to<br />

the deposition of sediment eroded upstream or to sediment deposited during river flooding. Additional fluxes<br />

may exist in specific situations (e.g. nutrients in subsurface lateral flows ; supply of NO 3<br />

from groundwater ().<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

133


N P K<br />

Nutrient inputs<br />

Inorganic amendments Yes Yes Yes<br />

Organic amendments Yes Yes Yes<br />

Biological fixation Yes No No<br />

Dry or wet deposition Yes Yes Yes<br />

Sedimentation and run-on Yes Yes Yes<br />

Nutrient outputs<br />

Harvested products Yes Yes Yes<br />

Grazed products Yes Yes Yes<br />

Leaching Yes Generally negligible Low<br />

Gaseous emissions Yes No No<br />

Erosion and runoff Yes Yes Yes<br />

Table 6.7 Major components of soil nutrient mass balances for N, P and K<br />

The main losses are related to nutrients contained in exported harvested products (crops or fodder), and<br />

nutrients contained in food ingested by primary grazers (Table 6.7). Nutrients may also be lost by gaseous<br />

emissions (NH 3<br />

, N 2<br />

, N 2<br />

O), through erosion and in surface runoff, or by leaching. The latter applies mostly to<br />

NO 3<br />

-N, to a lesser extent to NH 4<br />

-N and K, and to a very limited extent to PO 4<br />

-P except in coarse textured soils<br />

saturated with P.<br />

6.8.3 | Nutrient budgets: a matter of spatial scale<br />

The larger the spatial scale, the more certain nutrient flows are internalized. For instance, in a selfsufficient,<br />

well-managed farm, the net balance may be nil or close to nil. However, different parts of the farm<br />

may well have very different balances. Likewise, in extensively-managed agropastoral systems, nutrient flows<br />

mediated through livestock occur between rangelands and croplands. At a regional scale, the balances may<br />

thus be nil or only slightly negative, whereas large imbalances exist within the region (see Box 6.1).<br />

At the global scale, fertilizer use and the growing of leguminous crops have resulted in a doubling of the<br />

rate at which N enters the terrestrial ecosystems as compared to pre-industrial levels. Likewise, the use of P<br />

fertilizers, animal feed supplements and detergents has led to a doubling of P inputs in the environment as<br />

compared to background P release from weathering. This is indicative of a net positive balance but hides large<br />

regional disparities. Bouwman, Beusen and Billen (2009) calculated global soil N and P balances for the year<br />

2000. Outputs were restricted to harvested and grazed crops and grasses, whereas inputs included manure,<br />

fertilizers, N deposition and N fixation. These authors estimated the inputs to soils at 249 Tg N and 31 Tg P yr -1 and<br />

losses through harvest and grazing at 93 Tg N and 16 Tg P yr -1 . Assuming no build-up of N in the soil, their model<br />

predicted that 16 percent (41 Tg yr -1 ) of the inputs may be lost by erosion and leaching, thereby contributing<br />

to a loss in environmental quality. In the case of P, their calculations predicted a net accumulation of P at a<br />

rate of 12 Tg yr -1 and losses of P through leaching and erosion of 2 Tg yr -1 . On a continental scale, considering<br />

both natural and agro-ecosystems, balances were always positive and comprised between 8.5 (North Asia)<br />

and 35 (Europe) kg N ha -1 yr -1 , and between 0.22 (Africa) and 5.5 (Europe) kg P ha -1 yr -1 . Focusing specifically on<br />

P and cropland, but restricting the balance calculations to fertilizer and manure inputs and harvest outputs,<br />

highlighted large P deficits in South America, northern United States and eastern Europe. Large P surpluses<br />

were found in the coastal United States, western and southern Europe, East Asia and southern Brazil.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

134


Within the same continent, large variations in nutrient balances may occur. For 13 African countries,<br />

estimated balanced or negative nutrient budgets for N, P and K. At the national level, estimated soil nutrient<br />

balances for the year 2000 ranged from -2 to -60 kg N ha -1 yr -1 , from 0 to -1 1 kg P ha -1 yr -1 , and from -2 to -61<br />

kg K ha -1 yr -1 . A later study at 1 km² resolution confirmed the overall negative balances but highlighted larger<br />

variability over short distances. The rate of nutrient mining by crops was generally low or moderate, because<br />

of low land productivity (low yields), but accumulated over many decennia nutrient depletion may become<br />

severe and may be strongly aggravated by soil erosion.<br />

Based on a review of 57 nutrient budget studies related to the African continent, confirmed that N budgets<br />

at field and farm scale were largely negative whereas for phosphorus negative balances were reported in only<br />

56 percent of the studies. Going from the continental scale to the plot scale, there was a tendency for the<br />

variability in nutrient budgets to increase. This is to be expected, as land uses and management practices in<br />

smallholder agriculture in Africa are highly diversified between farms, within farms and even within plots. The<br />

study did not find a clear trend in the magnitude of the nutrient budgets from plot to continental scales. This<br />

is in contrast to other studies which did report increasingly negative balances as the scale increased.<br />

Box 6.1 | Livestock-related budgets within village territories in Western Niger<br />

(Schlecht et al., 2004)<br />

In the Sahelian zone of West Africa, between 1.5 and 9 kg N ha -1 yr -1 and between 0.06 and 0.7 kg P ha -1<br />

yr -1 are taken in by grazing livestock. The quantity varies by location and land use type (rangeland,<br />

cropland, fallow). However, up to 95 percent of the nutrients consumed by livestock are recycled through<br />

faeces. About 40-50 percent of these faeces end up being spatially concentrated at corralling spots or<br />

in farmyards, which represent only a few percent of the total village lands. Though nutrient in- and outflows<br />

related to livestock account for only a small fraction of the nutrient flows in Sahelian crop-livestock<br />

systems, livestock thus plays a major role in the spatial redistribution of nutrients. Negative balances<br />

occur on rangelands and variable (positive or negative) balances are found in croplands depending on the<br />

intensity of application of organic amendments.<br />

At even smaller scales, differences in soil fertility may arise from differential nutrient budgets. Strong<br />

gradients in soil fertility have been reported around villages, compounds, trees and shrubs as a result of<br />

higher levels of inputs (litter, household refuse, human excreta, manure and urine from resting animals,<br />

sedimentation, etc.) near these features. These are referred to as ‘fertility rings’ or ‘fertility islands’.<br />

6.8.4 | Nutrient budgets: a matter of land use system, land use type, managementand<br />

household equity<br />

Nutrient balances vary greatly across land use (LU) systems. Intensive growing of industrial crops in Europe<br />

is generally characterized by excess inputs of N, despite a recent tendency towards reduced fertilization<br />

driven by EU regulations and the economics of fertilizer use. As a result of the decoupling of livestock and land<br />

and because livestock are increasingly fed with imported feed, pastures are commonly exposed to excessive<br />

applications of manure (e.g. in Normandy in France, and in Denmark and Holland). Regarding P, after decades<br />

of excess application of P, there is nowadays a tendency for farmers to reduce their P application rates, or even<br />

to stop applying P altogether and to rely only on accumulated soil reserves and P released from soil mineral<br />

weathering.<br />

At the other extreme, subsistence farming in developing countries is commonly characterized by negative<br />

balances, reflecting nutrient mining (Roy et al., 2003). examined nutrient balances for different land uses in<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

135


a Kenyan district. N deficits in excess of -1 00 kg ha -1 yr -1 were found for maize, sugar cane, and pyrethrum. P<br />

deficits in excess of -1 0 kg ha -1 yr -1 were found for sugar cane, pyrethrum, and beans, but P excesses occurred<br />

in tea and maize-bean plots. Except for coffee, tea and seasonal fallow, K deficits in excess of -50 kg ha -1 yr -1<br />

occurred in all systems. These observed differences reflect differences in the use of (in-)organic amendments,<br />

but also nutrient transfers across LU types. In the case of coffee for instance, mulching is recommended, which<br />

is done by using residues from other crops (e.g. bananas) or grasses from fallow land.<br />

In Asia, both strongly positive and strongly negative balances have been reported. K deficits have been<br />

reported for rice-based systems across several Asian countries ranging from -25 to -70 kg ha -1 yr -1 . also reported<br />

K deficits in 71 paddy farms in south China, but found N and P surpluses. Based on negative nutrient balances<br />

for Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand, and positive balances for Japan,<br />

Malaysia and Korea, it has been argued that lower-income countries with large and growing population were<br />

more likely to present negative balances whereas higher income countries with stable populations tended to<br />

have positive balances. In sub-Saharan Africa, the larger the population density, the more negative the N and<br />

P balances.<br />

For similar systems, differences in nutrient balances may also arise from variable access of farmers to<br />

external inputs. In the Sudanian zone of west Africa, cultivated plots near hamlets tended to have less negative<br />

or more positive balances than plots near larger villages because farmers in hamlets cared better for their<br />

crops, earned more income from sales and therefore could invest more in fertilizers. Generally, cultivated plots<br />

near hamlets and villages benefit from greater additions of household refuse and human and animal faeces.<br />

However, social inequality in access to resources has been found to have an equally large or even larger effect<br />

on nutrient balances than distance from the village. For instance, positive N, P and K balances were observed<br />

for Fulani cropland because their large herds supply them with abundant manure. Likewise, nutrient budgets<br />

ranging from strongly negative to strongly positive were reported for banana-based systems in Tanzania<br />

depending on access to cattle and cattle management (Roy et al., 2003). Especially in small-holder agriculture,<br />

site-specific management may also induce large fertility gradients over short distances.<br />

(Peri-)urban agriculture is characterized by large excesses in nutrients, especially N. This is commonly driven<br />

by the market-oriented nature of this production system, which allows farmers to invest in external inputs. In<br />

addition, these systems often rely heavily on the re-use of urban solid waste and waste water. Hence, (peri-)<br />

urban production systems exemplify another form of large scale fertility transfer, from rural areas to urban<br />

areas. Food produced by nutrient mining in rural areas is consumed in cities, leading to strong soil enrichment<br />

of urban soils, especially at urban vegetable production sites (see Box 6.2).<br />

6.8.5 | What does the future hold?<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> nutrient budgets depend on the local socio-economic conditions but also on market prices of inputs and<br />

on policies. In Western Europe for instance, rising prices of fertilizers and the strengthening of environmental<br />

policies has led to reductions in N and P inputs into farmland, and this trend is expected to continue. Dwindling<br />

P resources and climate change may further affect soil nutrient balances, in managed but also in natural<br />

ecosystems.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

136


Box 6.2 | Nutrient balances in urban vegetable production in West African cities<br />

Based on a two year study of urban gardening sites in Niamey (Niger), it was found that N, P and K<br />

balances were all positive, with values for high and low input gardens respectively of 1133 and 290 kg ha -1<br />

for N; 223 and 125 kg ha -1 for P; and 312 and 351 kg ha<br />

-1 for K. Similar N and P balances were reported for<br />

urban vegetable gardens in Kano (Nigeria), Bobo Dioulasso (Burkina Faso) and Sikasso (Mali). However, at<br />

these latter sites, K balances tended to be negative. Overall, urban vegetable production sites appear to be<br />

major nutrient sinks from which large environmental externalities can be expected.<br />

Bouwman, Beusen and Billen (2009) evaluated the impact of four future development scenarios on<br />

nutrient balances for the year 2050. The scenarios, describing contrasting future development in agriculture<br />

nutrient use under changing climate, are based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. In the most<br />

pessimistic case, the global N balance may increase by 50 percent in the coming decades. In case of proactive<br />

policies aiming at closing the nutrient balance, the N balance is expected to remain constant at 150 Tg yr -1 .<br />

Regarding P, all scenarios predict a future increase in global soil P balance. These global balances hide large<br />

variations across regions and even across land uses. Unfertilized rangelands are likely to maintain negative<br />

P balances. Scenarios with a reactive approach to environmental problems portray significant increases in N<br />

and P balances in Asia, Central and South America and Africa, which can be strongly reduced by a proactive<br />

approach. For North America, Europe and Oceania, a shift from reactive to proactive environmental policies<br />

could allow limiting the increase in N and P balances, or even a decrease in the overall nutrient balance.<br />

Whereas large positive nutrient balances sustained for extended periods of time in industrialized countries<br />

have resulted in negative environmental externalities, positive nutrient balances should not be viewed as<br />

necessarily environmentally harmful. Indeed, in many developing regions (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa), positive<br />

P balances are needed to restore soil fertility potential depleted by long lasting nutrient mining and to boost<br />

the often very low crop yields. Inputs of N in organic form may also be beneficial as part of a strategy to restore<br />

the soils’ organic carbon stocks. Possible negative environmental externalities should be weighed against the<br />

benefits of food security, economic welfare and social well-being. To minimize the negative externalities, the<br />

best nutrient management approaches should be promoted through judicious policies.<br />

6.9 | <strong>Soil</strong> compaction status and trends<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction is an important problem affecting productivity of soils across the globe. A hidden problem<br />

of soils occurring on or below the surface, compaction impairs the function of the subsoil by impeding<br />

root penetration and water and gaseous exchanges (McGarry and Sharp, 2003). <strong>Soil</strong> compaction reduces soil<br />

macroporosity e.g. from an optimum of 6 to 17 percent, and hence reduces pasture and crop yield (Drewry,<br />

Cameron and Buchan, 2008).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction in most circumstances is a function of soil type (texture, mineralogy, organic matter),<br />

soil-water content and land management (e.g. tillage practices, traffic, grazing intensity). The problem is not<br />

limited to crop land but is also prevalent in rangelands and grazing fields, and even in natural non-disturbed<br />

systems. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction occurs when compressible soils are subjected to traction e.g. in forest harvesting,<br />

amenity land use, pipeline installation, land restoration, wildlife trampling (Batey, 2009) or winter grazing<br />

(Tracy and Zhang, 2008).<br />

Trampling mechanically disrupts soil aggregates and reduces aggregate stability (Warren et al., 1986) and<br />

its effect increases with stocking intensity (Willatt and Pullar, 1983). The degree of damage associated with<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

137


trampling at a particular site depends on soil type (Van Haveren, 1983), soil water content, seasonal climatic<br />

conditions (Warren et al., 1986), and vegetation type (Wood and Blackburn, 1984). Climate is therefore an<br />

important determinant of the effects of compaction. Where soil moisture deficits are large, a restriction in<br />

root depth may have severe effects but the same level of compaction may have a neglible effect where soil<br />

moisture deficits are small (Batey, 2009).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction effects are long lasting or even permanent (Håkansson and Lipiec, 2000). Especially in<br />

cultivated land, soil compaction is exacerbated by low soil organic matter content. Intensive use of farm<br />

machinery including tillage implements such as the mould board, disc ploughs and disc harrows contributes<br />

to soil compaction, depending on the pattern of load and stress applied and the number of passes. The initial<br />

condition of the soil also plays a role, including soil moisture, organic matter content, bulk density, particle<br />

size distribution (including high silt content), and aggregate stability (Materechera, 2008; Horn et al., 2005;<br />

Imhoff, Da Saliva and Fallow, 2004). Alfisols, a major soil used for crop production in the tropics and covering<br />

approximately 4 percent of the African land mass, are particularly vulnerable. They are strongly weathered<br />

and inherently of low organic matter and nutrient status, have a weak structure, and are highly susceptible to<br />

crusting, compaction and accelerated erosion (Lal, 1987).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction decreases soil physical fertility by impairing storage and supply of water and nutrients, and<br />

by increasing erosion hazards and the transport of phosphorus and other nutrients out of the farming system.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction can reduce crop yields by as much as 60 percent (Sidhu and Duiker, 2006). The range of yield<br />

effects is variable, and depends partly on the crop. Cotton was found to be more sensitive to soil compaction<br />

than were soybeans, corn or Brachiaria brizantha (Busscher, Frederick and Bauer, 2000). Yields of sugarcane<br />

(Saccharum officinarum L.) were reduced by 40 percent with sub-surface compaction of a clay soil (Jouve and<br />

Oussible, 1979), while in a clay loam soil wheat yields were reduced by 12 to 23 percent (Oussible, Crookstone<br />

and Larson, 1992). The compaction effects on yield are greatest when the crop is under stress, such as from<br />

drought or an excessively wet growing season (Sidhu and Duiker, 2006). Krmenec (2000) observed stand<br />

count reductions of 20 to 30 percent, plant height decreases of up to 50 percent and yield reductions of about<br />

19 percent in compacted compared to non-compacted plots. The study of Voorhees, Nelson and Randall (1986)<br />

illustrates that a one-time compaction event can lead to reduced crop yields up to 12 years later. In another<br />

study, soil compaction reduced grass yield by up to 20 percent due to N-related stresses (Smith, McTaggart<br />

and Tsuruta, 1997; Douglas, Campbell and Crawford, 1998). In addition, the creation of waterlogged zones or of<br />

dry zones caused by shallow rooting can deny plants access to deeper reserves of water (Batey and McKenzie,<br />

2006).<br />

Additional consequences include chemical changes, such as the amount of greenhouse gases (nitrous<br />

oxide and methane) emitted from or taken up in a soil (Hansen, Maehlum and Bakken, 1993; Ruser et al., 1998),<br />

and reduced root growth and consequently lower crop yields. A study by Gray and Pope (1986) showed also<br />

that the incidence of Phytophthora root rot in soybeans (Glycine max. L.) was greater with soil compaction.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction increases the abundance of anaerobic microsites and decreases the proportion of coarse<br />

pores, which may favour emissions of both CH 4<br />

and N 2<br />

O (Ball, Scott and Parker, 1999a). Only rarely has soil<br />

compaction been associated with positive impacts, such as increasing the plant-available water capacity of<br />

sandy soils (Rasmussen, 1985) or reducing nitrate leaching (Badalıkova and Hruby, 1998) or benefiting soybean<br />

grown in areas prone to iron deficiency chlorosis in wet years (DeJong-Hughes et al., 2001).<br />

6.9.1 | Effect of tillage systems on compaction<br />

While all tillage methods tend to reduce soil bulk density and penetration resistance to the depth of tillage<br />

(Erbach et al., 1992), equipment used in modern agriculture causes soil compaction of topsoil and subsoil.<br />

Working the soil to avoid compaction requires timing of tillage in relation to soil water moisture content<br />

and soil texture (Håkansson and Lipiec, 2000). No-tillage (NT) agriculture is gaining wide acceptance and<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

138


is among the top options in the portfolio of technologies to reduce tillage costs, conserve soil and water,<br />

increase soil organic carbon (SOC) pools, and reduce net CO 2<br />

emissions, which contribute to global warming<br />

(Lal et al., 2004). Despite the numerous benefits of NT, there is no consensus yet on its role in alleviating<br />

soil compaction: some researchers report increased compaction associated with the practice (Bueno et al.,<br />

2006) and others a decrease in compaction (Gregory, Shea and Bakko, 2005). Increasing soil organic matter,<br />

as practiced in conservation agriculture, reduces soil compactibility (Thomas, Haszler and Blevins, 1996), but<br />

residue availability remains a key challenge, especially in Africa.<br />

6.9.2 | What is the extent of deep soil compaction?<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction affects mainly topsoils (Balbuena et al., 2000; Flowers and Lal, 1998) but can also affect<br />

subsoils at depths >30 cm. Most subsoil compaction occurs when the soil is wet and field equipment weights<br />

exceed 10 tons per axle. The average weight and power of vehicles used on farms has approximately tripled<br />

since 1966 and maximum wheel loads have risen by a factor of six (Chamen, 2006). While remediation of<br />

shallow compaction is possible, for example by ripping and subsoiling, correcting soil compaction at depths<br />

below 45 cm is challenging (Batey, 2009; Berli et al., 2004). Both topsoil and subsoil compaction have been<br />

acknowledged by the European Union as a serious form of soil degradation, estimated to be responsible<br />

for degradation of up to 33 million ha in Europe (Akker and Canarache, 2001). Similar compaction problems<br />

have been reported elsewhere, including in Australia, Azerbaijan, Japan, Russia, China, Ethiopia and New<br />

Zealand (Hamza and Anderson, 2005). The total amount of compacted soil worldwide has been estimated<br />

at approximately 68 million ha or around 4 percent of the total land area (Oldeman, 1992; Soane and Van<br />

Ouwerkerk, 1994). Nearly 33 million ha is located in Europe, where the use of heavy machinery is the main<br />

cause. Cattle trampling and insufficient cover of the top soil by natural vegetation or crops account for<br />

compaction of 18 million ha in Africa, and 10 million ha in Asia (Flowers and Lal, 1998; Hamza and Anderson, 2003).<br />

Agricultural mismanagement (80 percent) and overgrazing (16 percent) are the two major causative factors of<br />

human induced soil compaction (Oldeman, 1992).<br />

6.9.3 | Solutions to soil compaction problems<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction, like soil chemical characteristics, should be monitored routinely and corrected as part of<br />

soil management (Batey, 2009). Although soil compaction effects on soil biodiversity and related functions<br />

and processes depend on several site and soil properties, a threshold of effective bulk density of 1.7 g cm–3 is<br />

the maximum above which only negative effects are observed (Beylich et al., 2010). Managing soil compaction<br />

can be achieved through appropriate application of some or all of the following techniques: (a) addition and<br />

maintenance of adequate amount of soil organic matter to improve and stabilize soil structure (Heuscher,<br />

Brandt and Jardine, 2005); (b) guiding, confining and minimizing vehicular traffic to the absolutely essential<br />

by reducing the number and frequency of operations, and performing farm operations only when the soil<br />

moisture content is below the optimal range for the maximum proctor density (Kroulik et al., 2009); (c)<br />

mechanical loosening such as deep ripping (Hamza and Anderson, 2005); and (d) selecting a rotation which<br />

includes crops and pasture plants with strong tap roots able to penetrate and break down compacted soils<br />

(Hamza and Anderson, 2005). Promoting macrofauna activity can accelerate creation of channels for water<br />

infiltration and root growth. Arbuscular mycorrhiza can to some extent alleviate the stress of soil compaction.<br />

This effect has been observed on wheat growth following increased root/shoot ratio of wheat under<br />

compaction (Miransari et al., 2008). In the long-term, soil compaction can be reduced by natural processes<br />

that cause the soil to shrink and swell such as wetting and drying (Shiel, Adey and Lodder, 1988), and freezing<br />

and thawing (Miller, 1980).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> moisture lower than the plastic limit is desirable for cultivation. Traffic should be avoided or restricted when<br />

condition are otherwise. For farmers, a simple test to avoid soil compaction involves squeezing a small lump of<br />

soil into a ball and rolling it into a rod about 3 mm in diameter. If a rod can be made easily, the soil is too wet and<br />

will compact if it is worked or has animals or machinery on it. If the rod is crumbly the water content should allow<br />

traffic and cultivation without compaction. If a rod will not form at all, the soil could be too dry for tillage in a sandy<br />

or loamy soil. This test should be run at several points over the full depth of any proposed cultivation.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

139


6.10 | Global soil-water quantity and quality: status, processes and trends<br />

The world relies on its freshwater for ecosystem health and human well-being and prosperity. Yet only 2.5<br />

percent of the world’s water is fresh, and of that, 68.7 percent is in the form of ice. Groundwater comprises 30.1<br />

percent of the freshwater, and just 0.4 percent of the world’s freshwater is in lakes, rivers and the soil.<br />

6.10.1 | Processes<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> water comprises only 0.05 percent of the world’s store of freshwater. However, the upward and<br />

downward fluxes of water and energy through the soil are massive, and they are strongly linked. The flows are<br />

upward in the form of water vapour, long-wave radiation and reflected short-wave radiation, and downward<br />

in the form of liquid water and short-wave radiation (Figure 6.12). The soil-vegetation system is the first<br />

receiver of the rain and energy that fall on our lands. The soil-vegetation system, which encompasses the<br />

upper reaches of the groundwater or basement rock to just above the soil-vegetative layer, is the critical zone<br />

for controlling terrestrial water quantity and quality.<br />

Rodell et al. (2015) estimate the total annual precipitation onto continents to be 116 500±5 100 km 3 yr -1<br />

– equivalent to approximately five-times the water stored in the Great Lakes of North America. Sixty percent<br />

of this (70 600±5 000 km 3 yr -1 ) returns to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration. The remaining 40<br />

percent (45 900±4 400 km 3 yr -1 ) leaves the continents as runoff, with the greatest proportion either running<br />

off the surface of the soil or returning to streams via the groundwater flow system after passing through the<br />

soil. Thus small changes due to human intervention and climate change that alter these fluxes can have very<br />

large impacts on the store of soil water.<br />

The quantity, quality and flow of water over and through soil affect the spatial and temporal availability<br />

and usage of water. The quantity of soil water in a particular layer of soil can be determined by the soil-water<br />

retention curve, the so-called ‘soil-water characteristic’ (Figure 6.13). This curve describes the relationship<br />

between the amount of water a particular soil can hold and the energy, or matric potential, required to<br />

overcome adhesive and cohesive forces to extract water from the soil. <strong>Soil</strong>s of different textures have very<br />

differing characteristic curves (Figure 6.13) and this affects the movement and storage of water in the landscape.<br />

© European Space Agency<br />

Figure 6.12 The flows of water and energy through the soil-vegetation<br />

horizon<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

140


The quality of the soil’s water is determined by the impurities and pollutants present in the soil water, which<br />

may, or may not be adsorbed to and/or exchanged in some part with the soil’s reactive matrix materials.<br />

The flow of soil water is determined by the gradient in the matric potential, and the soil’s hydraulic<br />

conductivity, K (cm day -1 ) (Figure 6.14), which describes the ease with which water flows through the soil<br />

pore space. The hydraulic conductivity curve is highly non-linear and strongly dependent on the soil’s water<br />

content, θ, and hence matric potential (Figure 6.14). <strong>Soil</strong> water flow can vary from very slow in soil with small<br />

pores, to very fast in soil with large interconnected pores.<br />

Figure 6.13 The soil-water characteristic curve linking matric potential, to the soil’s volumetric water content.<br />

Source: Tuller and Or, 2003.<br />

The soil-water characteristic (Figure 6.14) is an important factor affecting soil microbiology and rhizosphere<br />

ecology. It controls the stability of the spatial and temporal geometry of the soil pore space, which in turn<br />

defines the allocation of resources to soil biota, the transport of liquids, gases and solutes to and from roots,<br />

and the diversity of microbial habitats (Hinsinger et al., 2009). The soil micro-organisms are largely aquatic in<br />

nature and do not inhabit the air-filled pores. They live instead in the liquid phase of the pores, the thickness of<br />

which is controlled by the matric potential, which also controls the size and distribution of water-filled pores<br />

that provide the hydraulic connectivity through soils.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

141


Figure 6.14: The soil’s hydraulic conductivity, K (cm day -1 ) in relation to the matric potential, ψ (MPa). As the matric potential becomes<br />

more negative the soil’s water content drops (see Figure 6.16) which increases the tortuosity and slows the flow of water. Source:<br />

Hunter College. 3<br />

The interactions between the structure and physical, chemical and biological components of the soil control<br />

the myriad soil functions and processes that are essential for healthy soils, ecosystems and human well-being.<br />

The soil acts as buffer and filter. Indeed, our soil is the world’s largest water filter. And through this buffering<br />

and filtering, soil controls the quantity and quality of the world’s liquid freshwater.<br />

6.10.2 | Quantifying soil moisture<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> water varies on multiple time and space scales, driven by climate, weather variability, land cover,<br />

topography and soil type and structure (Figure 6.15). Measuring variations in soil water is challenging especially<br />

at large scales where the cost of direct measurement would be very high. Long-term measurement networks<br />

have historically been limited to a few locations globally (Robock et al., 2000). However, with the recognition<br />

of soil water as an essential climate variable and the realization that in-situ measurements are necessary for<br />

the calibration and validation of remote sensing, the number of operational monitoring networks is increasing<br />

(Dorigo et al., 2011). There are also short-term experimental campaigns with multi-scale soil water sampling<br />

(Crow et al., 2012). For example, the <strong>Soil</strong> Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) in the United States provides soil<br />

water measurements for 174 sites across the United States, with some measurements dating back to 1992.<br />

New technologies such as the COsmic-ray <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Observing System (COSMOS) cosmic-ray neutron<br />

probes (Zreda et al., 2012) have enabled more efficient and larger measurement footprints of the order of<br />

several hundreds of square meters.<br />

3 http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/tbw/soils.veg/lecture.outlines/soils.chap.5/soils_chapter.5.htm<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

142


At continental scales, the only practical means of estimating soil water is from satellite sensors or<br />

simulation models. Satellite-based measurements of soil water are generally based on measuring microwave<br />

emissions that vary because of the sensitivity of the soil dielectric constant to its wetness. These approaches<br />

use radiative transfer models to simulate the transfer of radiation emitted from the soil through the vegetation<br />

canopy and atmosphere to the satellite sensor. However, measurements have generally been restricted to the<br />

top centimetre of the soil column because of the penetration depth of microwave signals for current sensors<br />

(> 6 GHz). They are also restricted to sparsely vegetated regions. The recently launched <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Ocean<br />

Salinity (SMOS) (Kerr et al., 2001) and <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) (Entekhabi et al., 2010) satellite<br />

missions improve on this by using L-band (1-2 Ghz) sensors that have penetration depths of the order 5 cm<br />

and are less restricted by dense vegetation. Estimates from land surface models have also contributed to<br />

understanding the variation of soil water at large scales (Sheffield and Wood, 2008). These simulation models<br />

are driven by observations of precipitation, temperature and other meteorology and simulate the surface<br />

hydrological cycle with soil water as a prognostic state variable. Recent efforts have developed long-term<br />

simulations of soil water at regional to global scales (Sheffield and Wood, 2007, 2008; Haddeland et al., 2011),<br />

although uncertainties exist because of missing process representation in the models and because of errors in<br />

model structure, parameters and the meteorological forcings.<br />

6.10.3 | Status and trends<br />

Understanding variations in soil water is critical for a range of applications including drought risk<br />

management, agricultural decision making, and understanding and attributing climate change impacts.<br />

Currently, long-term (multi-decadal) time series of soil water which have been developed from models<br />

and satellite retrievals are being used to understand variability and long-term changes in soil water<br />

Figure 6.15 Factors controlling soil water spatial variability and the scales at which they are important. Source: Crow et al., 2010)<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

143


(Sheffield and Wood, 2008; Dorigo et al., 2012). Figure 6.16(a) shows the spatial variability of soil water globally<br />

from model simulations, ranging from high values in the wet tropics and northern boreal forests, to the desert<br />

regions, such as North Africa, the Middle East, central Asia and Australia. Seasonally, soil water varies with<br />

changes in precipitation (Figure 6.16 b) with the largest variations in the monsoonal regions of south and<br />

southeast Asia, west and central Africa and the Amazon. From year-to-year, the El Niño Southern Oscillation<br />

(ENSO) is the main driver of soil water variability globally (Sheffield and Wood, 2011), often leading to drought<br />

conditions in the Amazon, south Asia, eastern Australia and southern Africa during El Niño years, and to<br />

drought in the United States southwest and the Horn of Africa in La Niña years.<br />

Longer-term changes in soil water are mostly driven by changes in precipitation (Figure 6.16 c and d). Global<br />

warming may be playing a role in drying soil water in some regions, although this is a subject of debate. Over<br />

the past 60 years, soil water has been generally wetting over the western hemisphere and drying over the<br />

eastern hemisphere, mostly in Africa, East Asia and Europe. Trends over the past 20 years (Figure 6.16 e and<br />

f) indicate intensification of drying in northern China and southeast Australia, and switches from wetting to<br />

drying across much of North America, and southern South America, in part because of several large-scale and<br />

lengthy drought events.<br />

6.10.4 | Hotspots of pressures on soil moisture<br />

Hotspots of pressures on soil water quantity and quality have emerged around the globe. These result from<br />

changes in soil water driven by climate change and variability, coupled with human pressures on soil water<br />

through, for example, agricultural intensification and extensification. We describe three hotspots: the North<br />

China Plain, the Horn of Africa, and the southwestern United States.<br />

The North China Plain has seen rapid expansion of agriculture driven by population growth and increasing<br />

demand for food. This area is relatively dry with around 500 mm yr -1 of precipitation and so irrigation from<br />

groundwater has become an important feature of agricultural intensification. However, groundwater has<br />

been used at unsustainable rates, with the result that groundwater levels are dropping by over 1 m per year in<br />

some parts (Kendy et al., 2003). Furthermore, precipitation has decreased over the past few decades (Figure<br />

6.16 f). Coupled with intensive irrigation and fertilizer application, this has led to declines in soil water quality<br />

through salinization and nitrogen leaching (Kendy et al., 2003).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

144


Figure 6.16 (a) Global distribution of average soil moisture depth in the top 1 m of the soil. (b) Seasonal variability in soil moisture<br />

calculated as the standard deviation of monthly mean soil moisture over the year. (c-d) Global trends (1950-2008) in precipitation<br />

and 1 m soil moisture. (e-f) As for (c-d) but for 1990-2008. Results for arid regions and permanent ice sheets are not shown. Source:<br />

Sheffield and Wood, 2007.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

145


Drought has plagued many parts of Africa because of high climate variability from year to year. Severe<br />

droughts in the 1970s and 1980s led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people across the Sahel<br />

(Sheffield and Wood, 2011). Recent droughts in the Horn of Africa have continued to affect millions of people<br />

(Ledwith, 2011; UN, 2011), driven by an overall decline in rainfall that is expected to continue and may be linked<br />

to anthropogenic warming of the Indian Ocean (Funk et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2011). Monitoring soil water<br />

and its impacts on food security in the Horn of Africa is particularly difficult because of the lack of ground<br />

measurements. Nonetheless, the use of satellite and modelling technologies has the potential to provide<br />

drought and famine early warning (Anderson et al., 2012; McNally et al., 2013; Sheffield et al., 2014).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> water in the southwestern United States has been affected over the past two decades by frequent<br />

severe drought events (2000-2002, 2007, 2009), culminating in a three year drought in California (2011-<br />

2014) with state-wide impacts on agriculture (Howitt et al., 2014). A shortfall in irrigation water owing to a<br />

depleted mountain snowpack was partly offset by increasing groundwater pumping. Recent analysis using<br />

Gravity Recover and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites has confirmed the resulting massive losses of<br />

groundwater since the 1980s from the aquifers underlying California’s agriculturally important Central Valley<br />

(Famiglietti and Rodell, 2013). McNutt (2014) concludes that “... it is this underground drought we can’t see<br />

that is enduring, worrisome, and in need of attention”.<br />

6.10.5 | Conclusions<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> water is vital for the health of terrestrial ecosystems and human well-being. Although only a small<br />

fraction of the world’s water is stored in the soil, the fluxes of water through the soil are massive.<br />

On the time-scale of years, the El Niño Southern Oscillation is the prime control on the global variability<br />

in soil water. At longer time-scales, the global pattern of precipitation is the dominant driver in controlling<br />

changes in soil water. This pattern may be influenced by climate change.<br />

Global analysis of the changing patterns of soil water has revealed the emergence of three global hotspots<br />

in terms of quantity and quality. These are the North China Plan, the Horn of Africa and the southwestern<br />

United States. There will be great challenges to address in these hotspot regions and in other pockets where<br />

declining soil water quantity and quality is threatening ecosystem health and human well-being.<br />

References<br />

Abd Elrahman, S.H., Mostafa, M.A.M., Taha, T.A., Elsharawy, M.A.O. & Eid, M.A. 2012. Effect of different<br />

amendments on soil chemical characteristics, grain yield and elemental content of wheat plants grown on<br />

salt-affected soil irrigated with low quality water. Annals Agric. Sci., 57: 175-182.<br />

Abdelfattah, M.A. & Shahid, S.A. 2007. A comparative characterization and classification of soils in Abu<br />

Dhabi coastal area in relation to Arid and Semi-Arid conditions using USDA and FAO soil classification System.<br />

Arid Land Research & Management, 21: 245-271.<br />

Abdulkadir, A., Sangaré, S.K., Amadou, H. & Agbenin, J.O. 2014. Nutrient balances and economic<br />

performance in urban and peri-urban vegetable production systems of three west African cities. Experimental<br />

Agriculture, 51: 126–150<br />

Aherne, J. & Posch, M. 2013. Impacts of nitrogen and sulphur deposition on forest ecosystem services in<br />

Canada. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5: 108–115<br />

Akiba, M. 1933. The threshold wind speed of sand grains on a wetted sand surface. Journal of Agricultural<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

146


Engineering in Japan, 5: 157–174.<br />

Akker, J.J.H. & Canarache, A. 2001. Two European concerted actions on subsoil compaction. Landnutzung<br />

und Landentwicklung, 42: 15–22.<br />

Alcamo, J., Van Vuuren, D., Cramer, W., Alder, J. & Bennett, E. 2006. Changes in ecosystem services and<br />

their drivers across scenarios. In S.R. Carpenter, ed. Ecosystem and human well-being: scenarios, pp. 279–354.<br />

Washington, DC, Island Press.<br />

Amundson, R. 2001. The carbon budget in soils. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet Sci, 29: 535-562.<br />

Anderson, W.B., Zaitchik, B.F., Hain, C.R., Anderson, M.C., Yilmaz, M.T., Mecikalski, J. & Schultz, L.<br />

2012. Towards an integrated soil moisture drought monitor for East Africa. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16: 2893-2913.<br />

Badalıkova, B. & Hruby, J. 1998. Physical soil properties at different systems of sugar beet cultivation. In<br />

Proc.: <strong>Soil</strong> condition and crop production. Gödöllö, Hungary, pp 83–85.<br />

Bakker, M.M., Govers, G. & Rounsevell, M.D.A. 2004. The crop productivity-erosion relationship: an<br />

analysis based on experimental work. Catena, 57(1): 55-76.<br />

Bakker, M.M., Govers, G., Jones, R.A. & Rounsevell, M.D.A. 2007. The effect of soil erosion on Europe’s<br />

crop yields. Ecosystems, 10(7): 1209-1219.<br />

Balbuena, R.H., Terminiello, A.M., Claverie, J.A., Casado, J.P. & Marlats, R. 2000. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction<br />

by forestry harvester operation. Evolution of physical properties. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agricola e<br />

Ambiental, 4: 453-459.<br />

Ball, B.C., Scott, A. & Parker, J.P. 1999a. Field N 2<br />

O, CO 2<br />

and CH 4<br />

fluxes in relation to tillage, compaction and<br />

soil quality in Scotland. <strong>Soil</strong> & Tillage Research, 53: 29-39.<br />

Barak, P., Jobe, B.O., Krueger, A.R., Peterson, L.A. & Laird, D.A. 1997. Effects of long-term soil acidification<br />

due to nitrogen fertilizer inputs in Wisconsis. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 197: 61-69.<br />

Bardgett, R.D. & van der Putten, W.H. 2014. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature,<br />

515: 505-511.<br />

Batey, T. & McKenzie, D.C. 2006. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction: identification directly in the field. <strong>Soil</strong> Use and Management,<br />

22(2): 123–131<br />

Batey, T. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction and soil management – a review. <strong>Soil</strong> Use and Management, 25: 335–345<br />

Batjes, N.H. 1996. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 47:<br />

151–163.<br />

Batjes, N.H. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> parameter estimates for the soil types of the world for use in global and regional modelling<br />

(Version 2.1). ISRIC Report 2002/2c. Wageningen, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and<br />

International <strong>Soil</strong> Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC)<br />

Berli, M., Kulli, B., Attinger, W., Keller, M., Leuenberger, J., Fluhler, H., Springman, S.M. & Schulin, R.<br />

2004. Compaction of agricultural and forest subsoils by tracked heavy construction machinery. <strong>Soil</strong> & Tillage<br />

Research, 75: 37–52<br />

Bernoux, M., Cerri, C.C., Cerri, C.E.P., Neto, M.S., Metay, A., Perrin, A.-S., Scopel, E., Razafimbelo, T.,<br />

Blavet, D. & Piccolo, M.D.C. 2006. Cropping systems, carbon sequestration and erosion in Brazil, a review.<br />

Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 26(1): 1-8<br />

Beylich, A., Oberholzer, H., Schrader, S., Hoper, H. & Wilke, B. 2010. Evaluation of soil compaction effects<br />

on soil biota and soil biological processes on soils. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research, 109: 133-143.<br />

Bielders, C.L., Rajot, J.-L. & Michels, K. 2004. L‘érosion éolienne dans le Sahel nigérien: influence des<br />

pratiques culturales actuelles et méthodes de lutte. Science et changements planétaires/Sécheresse, 15: 1–14<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

147


Bohn, H.L. 1976. Estimate of Organic Carbon in World <strong>Soil</strong>s. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 40: 468–470.<br />

Bohn, H.L. 1982. Estimate of Organic Carbon in World <strong>Soil</strong>s: II. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 46: 1118–1119.<br />

Bohr, H. 1978. On organic soil C and CO 2<br />

. Tellus, 30: 472-475<br />

Bolan, N.S., Hedley, M.J. & White, R.E. 1991. Processes of soil acidification during nitrogen cycling with<br />

emphasis on legume based pastures. Plant and soil, 134: 53-63<br />

Bouwman, A.F., Beusen, A.H.W. & Billen, G. 2009. Human alteration of the global nitrogen and phosphorus<br />

soil balances for the period 1970-2050. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 23(4): 1-16<br />

Brennan, R.F., Bolland, M.D.A. & Bowden, J.W. 2004. Potassium deficiency, and molybdenum deficiency<br />

and aluminium toxicity due to soil acidification, have become problems for cropping sandy soils in southwestern<br />

Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44: 1031-1039<br />

Breuning-Madsen, H. & Awadzi, T.W. 2005. Harmattan dust deposition and particle size in Ghana. Catena,<br />

63: 23-38<br />

Breure, A.M., Mulder, C.H., Rutgers, M., Schouten, A.J. & Van Wijnen, H.J. 2004 Belowground biodiversity<br />

as an indicator of sustainability for soil use. Land use systems in grassland dominated regions. Grassland Science<br />

in Europe, 9: 195-197<br />

Bueno, J., Amiama, C., Hernanz, J.L. & Pereira, J.M. 2006. Penetration resistance, soil water content, and<br />

workability of grasslands soils under two tillage systems. Trans. ASAE, 49: 875–882.<br />

Bullock, P., Houerou, L., Hoffman, M.T., Rounsevell, M., Sehgal, J. & Varallay, G. 1996. Land degradation<br />

and desertification. In R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, R.H. Moss & D.J. Dokken, eds. Climate change 1995: impacts,<br />

adaptations and mitigation of climate change: scientific-technical analyses, pp. 171-190. Contrinution of working<br />

group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge<br />

University Press.<br />

Bundschuh, J., Litter, M.I., Parvez, F., Román-Ross, G., Nicolli, H.B., Jean, J., Liu, C., López, D., Armienta,<br />

M.A., Guilherme, L.R.G., Cuevas, A.G., Cornejo, L., Cumbal, L. & Toujaguez, R. 2012. One Century of<br />

Arsenic Exposure in Latin America: A Review of History and Occurrence from 14 Countries. Science of the Total<br />

Environment, 429: 2–35.<br />

Buringh, P. 1984. Organic carbon in soils of the World. In G.M. Woodwell, ed. The role of terrestrial vegetation<br />

in the global carbon cycle, pp. 41-109. SCOPE 23. Chichester, J.Wiley & Sons.<br />

Busscher, W.J., Frederick, J.R. & Bauer, P.J. 2000. Timing effects of deep tillage on penetration resistance<br />

and wheat and soybean yield. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society America Journal, Madison, 64(3): 999-1003<br />

Carpenter, S.R. 2008. Phosphorus control is critical to mitigating eutrophication. Proceedings of the National<br />

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105: 11039–11040.<br />

Carré, F., Hiederer, R., Blujdea, V. & Koeble, R. 2010. Background Guide for the Calculation of Land Carbon<br />

Stocks in the Biofuels Sustainability Scheme Drawing on the 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas<br />

Inventories. EUR 24573 EN. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 109 pp.<br />

Castro de Esparza, M.L. 2006. The Presence of Arsenic in Drinking Water in Latin America and Its Effect on Public<br />

Health. International Congress.<br />

Cavelier, J., Aide, T.M., Dupuy, J.M., Eusse, A.M. & Santos, C. 1999. Long-term effects of deforestation on<br />

soil properties and vegetation in a tropical lowland forest in Colombia. Ecotropicos, 12: 57-68.<br />

Cerdan, O., Govers, G., Le Bissonnais, Y., Van Oost, K., Poesen, J., Saby, N., Gobin, A., Vacca, A., Quinton,<br />

J., Auerswald, K., Klik, A., Kwaad, F.J.P.M., Raclot, D., Ionita, I., Rejman, J., Rousseva, S., Muxart, T., Roxo,<br />

M.J. & Dostal, T. 2010. Rates and spatial variations of soil erosion in Europe: A study based on erosion plot<br />

data. Geomorphology, 122(1-2): 167-177.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

148


Chadwick, D., Sommer, S., Thorman, R., Fangueiro, D., Cardenas, L., Amon, B. & Misselbrook, T. 2011.<br />

Manure management: implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol., 166-67: 514-531.<br />

Chadwick, O.A., Derry, L.A., Vitousek, P.M., Huebert, B.J. & Hedindon, L.O. 1999. Changing sources of<br />

nutrients during four million years of ecosystem development. Nature, 397: 491–497.<br />

Chamen, W.C.T. 2006. Controlled traffic farming on a field scale in the UK. In R. Horn, H. Fleige, S. Peth<br />

& X.H. Peng, eds. <strong>Soil</strong> Management for Sustainability. Advances in Geoecology 38, pp. 251–260. Germany,<br />

Reiskirchen, GeoScience Publisher. 502 pp.<br />

Chappell, A., Webb, N.P., Butler, H.J., Strong, C.L., McTainsh, G.H., Leys, J.F. & Rossel, R.A.V. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

organic carbon dust emission: an omitted global source of atmospheric CO 2<br />

. Global Change Biology, 19: 3238-<br />

3244.<br />

Chen, J. 2007. Rapid urbanization in China: a real challenge to soil protection and food security. Catena, 69:<br />

1-15.<br />

Chepil, W.S. 1956. Influence of moisture on erodibility of soil by wind. Proceedings of the <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of<br />

America, 20: 288–292.<br />

Cobo, J.G., Dercon, G. & Cadisch, G. 2010. Nutrient balances in African land use systems across different<br />

spatial scales: A review of approaches, challenges and progress. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 136: 1–15.<br />

Cochet, H. 1996. Gestion paysanne de la biomasse et développement durable au Burundi. Cahiers des<br />

Sciences Humaines, 32: 133–151.<br />

Conant, R.T., Ryan, M.G., Ågren, G.I., Birge, H.E., Davidson, A.S., Eliasson, P.E., Eveans, S.E., Frey, S.D.,<br />

Giardina, C.P., Hopkins, F.M., Hyvönen, R., Kirchbaum, M.U.F., Lavallee, J.M., Leifeld, J., Parton, W.J.,<br />

Steinweg, J.M., Wallenstain, M.D., Wetterstedt, J.A.M. & Bradford, M.A. 2011. Temperature and soil organic<br />

matter decomposition rates—synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Global Change Biology, 17:<br />

3392-3404.<br />

Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O. & White, S. 2009. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for<br />

thought. Global Environmental Change, 19: 292–305.<br />

Couwenberg, J., Dommain, R. & Joosten, H. 2010. Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in southeast<br />

Asia. Global Change Biology, 16(6): 1715–1732.<br />

Cronan, C.S. & Grigal, D.F. 1995. Use of calcium/aluminum ratios as indicators of stress in forest ecosystems.<br />

Journal of Environmental Quality, 24: 209–226.<br />

Crossley, D.A., Meuller, B.R. & Perdue, J.C. 1992. Biodiversity of microarthropods ina agricultural soils:<br />

relation to processes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 40: 37-46.<br />

Crow, W., Miralles, D.& Cosh, M. 2010. A quasi-global evaluation system for satellite-based surface soil<br />

moisture retrievals. IEEE T. Geosci. Remote Sens., 48: 2516-2527.<br />

Crow, W.T., Berg, A.A., Cosh, M.H., Loew, A., Mohanty, B.P., Panciera, R., de Rosnay, P., Ryu, D. &<br />

Walker, J.P. 2012. Up-scaling sparse ground-based soil moisture observations for the validation of coarseresolution<br />

satellite soil moisture products. Review of Geophysics, 50(2).<br />

Crowder, B.M. 1987. Economic costs of reservoir sedimentation: A regional approach to estimating cropland<br />

erosion damage. Journal of soil and water conservation, 42(3): 194-197.<br />

Csavina, J., Field, J., Félix, O., Corral-Avitia, A.Y., Sáez, A.E. & Betterton, E.A. 2014. Effect of wind speed<br />

and relative humidity on atmospheric dust concentrations in semi-arid climates. Science of the Total Environment,<br />

487: 82–90.<br />

Darwin, C.R. 1845. Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited during the<br />

Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle Round the World, under the Command of Capt. Fitz Roy, R.N. 2nd edition. London.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

149


Darwin, C.R. 1846. An account of the fine dust which often falls on vessels in the Atlantic Ocean. Quarterly<br />

Journal of the Geological Society, 2(1–2): 26–30.<br />

Davidson, E.A. & Janssens, I.A. 2006. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks<br />

to climate change. Nature, 440: 165-173.<br />

De Deyn, G.B. & van der Putten, W.H. 2005. Linking aboveground and belowground diversity. Trends in<br />

Ecology & Evolution, 20: 625-633.<br />

de Lacerda, L.D. 2003. Updating global Hg emissions from small-scale gold mining and assessing its<br />

environmental impact. Environmental Geology, 43: 308-314.<br />

De Noni, G., Prat, C., Quantin, P., Viennot, M. & Zebrowski, C. 2000. Erosion et conservation, après<br />

récupération, des sols volcaniques indurés de l’Equateur et du Mexique. Etude et Gestion des Sols, 7: 25-36.<br />

Decaens, T. & Jimenez, J.J. 2002. Earthworm communities under an agricultural intensification gradient<br />

in Columbia. Plant <strong>Soil</strong>, 240: 133-143.<br />

DeJong-Hughes, J.M., Swan J.B., Moncrief J.F. & Voorhees, W.B. 2001. <strong>Soil</strong> Compaction: Causes, Effects and<br />

Control (Revision). University of Minnesota Extension Service BU-3115-E.<br />

Dent, D. 1986. Acid sulfate soils: a baseline for research and development. ILRI Publication No 39. The Netherlands,<br />

Wageningen, International Institute of Land Reclamation and Improvement.<br />

Department of Environment and Conservation, Australia (DECA). 2010. Assessment Levels for <strong>Soil</strong>,<br />

Sediment and Water. Australia.<br />

Department of the Environment, Australia (DEA). 2001. Land Theme Report. Australia State of the<br />

Environment Report 2001. Australia, CSIRO.<br />

Dercon, G., Deckers, J., Poesen, J., Govers, G., Sanchez, H., Ramirez, M., Vanegas, R., Tacuri, E. &<br />

Loaiza, G. 2006. Spatial variability in crop response under contour hedgerow systems in the Andes region of<br />

Ecuador. <strong>Soil</strong> & Tillage Research, 86(1): 15-26.<br />

Diaz, R.J. & Rosenberg, R. 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science<br />

(New York, NY), 321: 926–929.<br />

Diogo, R.V.C., Buerkert, A. & Schlecht, E. 2009. Horizontal nutrient fluxes and food safety in urban and<br />

peri-urban vegetable and millet cultivation of Niamey, Niger. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 87: 81–102.<br />

Djavanshir, K., Dasmalchi, H. & Emararty, A. 1996. Ecological and ecophysiological survey on sexual<br />

Euphrate poplar and Athel trees in Iranian deserts. Journal of Biaban (Iran), 1: 67–81.<br />

Dobermann, A., Cruz, P.C.S. & Cassman, K.G. 1996. Fertilizer inputs, nutrient balance, and soil nutrientsupplying<br />

power in intensive, irrigated rice systems. I. Potassium uptake and K balance. Nutrient Cycling in<br />

Agroecosystems, 46: 1–10.<br />

Doetterl, S., Van Oost, K. & Six, J. 2012. Towards constraining the magnitude of global agricultural sediment<br />

and soil organic carbon fluxes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 37(6): 642-655.<br />

Dorigo, W.A., de Jeu, R.A.M., Chung, D., Parinussa, R. M., Liu, Y. Y., Wagner, W. & Fernandez-Prieto, D.<br />

2012. Evaluating global trends (1988-2010) in harmonized multi-satellite surface soil moisture. Geophys. Res.<br />

Lett., 39(L 18405): 1-7.<br />

Dorigo, W.A., Wagner, W., Hohensinn, R., Hahn, S., Paulik, C., Drusch, M., Mecklenburg, S., van<br />

Oevelen, P., Robock, A. & Jackson, T.J. 2011. The International <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Network: A data hosting facility<br />

for global in situ soil moisture measurements. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 8: 1609–1663.<br />

Douglas, J.T., Campbell, D.J. & Crawford, C.E. 1998. <strong>Soil</strong> and crop responses to conventional, reduced<br />

ground pressure and zero traffic systems for grass silage production. <strong>Soil</strong> & Tillage Research, 24: 421-439.<br />

Drechsel, P., Gyiele, L., Kunze, D. & Cofie, O. 2001. Population density, soil nutrient depletion, and<br />

economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics, 38: 251–258.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

150


Drechsel, Pay, Giordano, Mark, Gyiele, & Lucy. 2004. Valuing nutrients in soil and water: Concepts and<br />

techniques with examples from IWMI studies in the developing world. Research report 82. Sri Lanka, Colombo, IWMI.<br />

Drees, L.R., Manu, A. & Wilding, L.P. 1993. Characteristics of Aeolian dusts in Niger, West Africa. Geoderma,<br />

59: 213-233.<br />

Drewry, J.J., Cameron, K.C. & Buchan, G.D. 2008. Pasture yield and soil physical property responses to soil<br />

compaction from treading and grazing — a review. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 46(3): 237–256<br />

Driscoll, C.T., Driscoll, K.M., Mitchell, M.J. & Raynal, D.J. 2003. Effects of acidic deposition on forest and<br />

aquatic ecosystems in New York State. Environmental Pollution, 123: 327-336.<br />

Edmeades, D.C. & Ridley, A.M. 2003. Using lime to ameliorate topsoil and subsoil acidity. In Z. Rengel, ed.,<br />

Handbook of soil acidity. Switzerland, Basel, Eastern Hemisphere Distribution. ISBN 0-8247-0890-3.<br />

Eggleton, P., Bignell, D.E., Hauser, S., Dibog, L., Norgrove, L. & Madong, B. 2002. Termite diversity<br />

across an anthropogenic disturbance gradient in the humid forest zone of West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems<br />

& Environment, 90: 189-202.<br />

Eglin, T., Ciais, P., Piao, S.l., Barre, P., Bellassen, V., Claude, P., Chen, C., Grasser, T., Koven, C., Reichstein,<br />

M. & Smith, P. 2010. Historical and future perspectives of global soil carbon response to climate and land-use<br />

changes. Tellus B, 62: 700–718.<br />

Ellis, E.C. & Ramankutty, N. 2008. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers<br />

in Ecology and the Environment, 6: 439–447.<br />

Entekhabi, D., Njoku, E.G., O’Neill, P.E., Kellogg, K.H., Crow, W.T., Edelstein, W.N., Entin, J.K.,<br />

Goodman, S.D., Jackson, T.J., Johnson, J., Kimball, J., Piepmeier, J.R., Koster, R.D., Martin N., McDonald,<br />

K.C., Moghaddam, M., Moran, S., Reichle, R., Shi, J.C., Spencer, M.W., Thurman, S.W., Tsang, L. & Van Zyl,<br />

J. 2010. The <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Mission. Proceedings of the IEEE, 98(5): 704-716.<br />

Environmental Affairs (EA). 2010. Framework for the Management of Contaminated Land. Republic of South<br />

Africa.<br />

Erbach, D.C., Benjamin, J.G., Cruse, R.M., Elamin, M.A., Mukhtur, S. & Choi, C.H. 1992. <strong>Soil</strong> and corn<br />

response to tillage with paraplow. Transactions of the ASAE, 35: 1347–1354.<br />

ESA. 2011. GLOBCOVER 2009. Products Description and Validation Report. Belgium, Université catholique de<br />

Louvain. 53 pp.<br />

Eswaran, H., Almaraz, R., van den Berg, E. & Reich, P. 1996. An Assessment of the <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> of Africa in<br />

Relation to Productivity. World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>, <strong>Soil</strong> Survey Division. Washington, DC, USDA Natural <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Conservation Service.<br />

Eswaran, H., Van Den Berg, E. & Reich, P. 1993. Organic carbon in soils of the world. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of<br />

America Journal, 57: 192-194.<br />

EU/JRC. (In press). Global <strong>Soil</strong> Biodiversity Atlas.<br />

European Commission (EC). 2013. Science for Environmental Policy In-Depth Report. <strong>Soil</strong> Contamination.<br />

Impacts on Human Health. European Commission.<br />

European Commission. 2004. European <strong>Soil</strong> Database – Distribution Version 2.0. Italy, Ispra, Institute for<br />

Environment and Sustainability, European Commission Joint Research Centre.<br />

European Environment Agency (EEA) 1. 2007. Progress in management of contaminated sites (CSI 015).<br />

European Environment Agency.<br />

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2010. The European Environment State and Outlook 2010:<br />

Freshwater Quality. Denmark, Copenhagen.<br />

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2012. The State of <strong>Soil</strong> in Europe. European Environment Agency.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

151


European Environment Agency (EEA). 2014. Progress in Management of Contaminated Sites. European<br />

Environment Agency.<br />

European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association. 2009. Forecasts of food, farming and fertilizer use in the<br />

European Union 2008-2018. Brussels.<br />

Falkowski, P., Scholes, R.J., Boyle, E., Canadell, J., Canfield, D., Elser, J., Gruber, N., Hibbard, K., Högberg,<br />

P., Linder, S., MacKenzie, F.T., Moore, B., Pedersen, T., Rosenthal, Y., Seitzinger, S., Smetacek, V. & Steffen,<br />

W. 2000. The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System. Science, 290(5490): 291–296.<br />

Famiglietti, J.S & Rodell, M. 2013. Water in the Balance. Science, 340(6138): 1300-1301<br />

Fanning, D., Rabenhorst, M., Coppock, C., Daniels, W. & Orndorff, Z. 2004. Upland active acid sulphate<br />

soils from construction of new Stafford County, Virginia, US, airport. Aust. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Res., 42: 527–536.<br />

FAO. 2011. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) - Managing<br />

systems at risk. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & London, Earthscan.<br />

FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC. 2009. Harmonized World <strong>Soil</strong> Database (version 1.1). Rome, FAO & Austria,<br />

Laxenburg, IIASA.<br />

FAO/ISRIC/ISSS. 1998. World Reference Base for <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>. World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Report, No.84. Rome,<br />

FAO.<br />

FAO-UNESCO. 1980. <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World. Paris, UNESCO.<br />

Farina, M.P.W., Channon, P. & Thibaud, G.R. 2000. A comparison of strategies for ameliorating subsoil<br />

acidity II. Long-term soil effects. <strong>Soil</strong> science society of America journal, 64: 652-658.<br />

Field, J.P., Belnap, J., Breshears, D.D., Neff, J.C., Okin, G.S., Whicker, J.J., Painter, T.H., Ravi, S., Reheis,<br />

M.C. & Reynolds, R.R. 2010. The ecology of dust. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(8): 423–430.<br />

Flowers, M. & Lal, R. 1998. Axle load and tillage effects on soil physical properties and soybean grain yield<br />

on a mollic ochraqualf in northwest Ohio. <strong>Soil</strong> Till. Res., 48: 21–35.<br />

Foley, J.A., De Fries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T.,<br />

Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J.,Monfreda, C., Patz,<br />

J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N. & Syder, P.K. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309: 570–<br />

574.<br />

Freebairn, D. & Wockner, G. 1986. A study of soil erosion on vertisols of the eastern Darling Downs,<br />

Queensland. I. Effects of surface conditions on soil movement within contour bay catchments. Australian<br />

Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 24(2): 135-158.<br />

Freedman, B. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter dynamics, climate change effects. Handbook of Global Environmental<br />

Pollution, 1: 317-323.<br />

Funk, C., Dettinger, M. D., Michaelsen, J., Verdin, J. P., Brown, M. E., Barlow, M. & Hoell, A. 2008.<br />

Warming of the Indian Ocean threatens eastern and southern African food security but could be mitigated by<br />

agricultural development. PNAS, 105(32): 11081–11086.<br />

Galloway, J.N., Dentener, F.J., Capone, D.G., Boyer, E.W., Howarth, R.W., Seitzinger, S.P., Asner, G.P.,<br />

Cleveland, C.C., Green, P.A., Holland, E.A., Karl, D.M., Michaels, A.F., Porter, J.H., Townsend, A.R. &<br />

Vosmarty, C.J. 2004. Nitrogen Cycles: Past, Present, and Future. Biogeochemistry, 70: 153–226<br />

Gardi, C., Jeffery, S. & Saltelli, A. 2013. An estimate of potential threats levels to soil biodiversity in EU.<br />

Global Change Biology, 19:1538-1548.<br />

Gardi, C., Panagos, P., van Liedekerke, M., Bosco, C. & de Brogniez, D. 2014. Land take and food security:<br />

Assessment of land take on the agricultural production in Europe. J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 8(5): 898-912.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

152


Gardner, T., Acosta-Martinez, V., Calderón, F.J., Zobeck, T.M., Baddock, M., Van Pelt, R.S., Senwo, Z.,<br />

Dowd, S. & Cox, S. 2012. Pyrosequencing reveals bacteria carried in different wind-eroded sediments. Journal<br />

of Environmental Quality, 41(3):744–753.<br />

Gebremichael, D., Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Deckers, J., Haile, M., Govers, G. & Moeyersons, J. 2005.<br />

Effectiveness of stone bunds in controlling soil erosion on cropland in the Tigray Highlands, northern Ethiopia.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Use Manage., 21(3): 287-297.<br />

Ghassemi, F., Jakeman, A.J. & Nix, H.A. 1995. Salinization of Land and Water <strong>Resources</strong>: Human Causes, Extent,<br />

Management and Case Studies. Wallingford, CABI Publishing. 517 pp.<br />

Giller, K.E., Rowe, E.C., de Ridder, N. & van Keulen, H. 2006. Resource use dynamics and interactions in<br />

the tropics: Scaling up in space and time. Agricultural Systems, 88: 8–27.<br />

Ginoux, P., Prospero, J.M., Gill, T.E., Hsu, N.C. & Zhao, M. 2012. Global-scale attribution of anthropogenic<br />

and natural dust sources and their emission rates based on MODIS Deep Blue aerosol products. Reviews of<br />

Geophysics, 50: RG 3005.<br />

Gorbushina, A.A., Kort, R., Schulte, A., Lazarus, D., Schneteger, B., Brumsack, H.-J. Broughton, W.J.<br />

& Favet. J. 2007. Life in Darwin’s dust: Intercontinental transport and survival of microbes in the nineteenth<br />

century. Environmental Microbiology, 9: 2911–2922.<br />

Govers, G., Merckx, R., Van Oost, K. & Van Wesemael, B. 2013. Managing <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon for Global<br />

Benefits. STAP Technical Report. Washington, DC, STAP. 70 pp.<br />

Gray, L.E. & Pope, R.A. 1986. Influence of soil compaction on soybean stand, yield, and Phytophthora root<br />

rot incidence. Agron. J., 78: 189-191.<br />

Gregory, M.M., Shea, K.L. & Bakko, E.B. 2005. Comparing agroecosystems: Effects of cropping and tillage<br />

patterns on soil, water, energy use and productivity. Renewable Agric. Food Syst., 20: 81–90.<br />

Grunwald, S. 1999. <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Matter (SOM). University of Florida. (Also available at http://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/<br />

faculty/grunwald/teaching/e<strong>Soil</strong>Science/organic.shtml)<br />

Guo, J.H., Liu, X.J., Zhang, Y., Shen, J.L., Han, W.X., Zhang, W.F., Christie, P., Goulding, K.W.T., Vitousek,<br />

P.M. & Zhang, F.S. 2010. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science, 327: 1008-1010.<br />

Gzik, A., Kuehling, M., Schneider, I. & Tschochner, B. 2003. Heavy Metal Contamination of <strong>Soil</strong>s in a<br />

Mining Area in South Africa and its Impact on Some Biotic Systems. J. <strong>Soil</strong>s & Sediments, 3(1): 29-34.<br />

Haddeland, I., Clark, D.B., Franssen, W., Ludwig, F., Voß, F., Arnell, N.W., Bertrand, N., Best, M., Folwell,<br />

S., Gerten, D., Gomes, S., Gosling, S.N., Hagemann, S., Hanasaki, N., Harding, R., Heinke, J., Kabat, P.,<br />

Koirala, S., Oki, T., Polcher, J., Stacke, T., Viterbo, P., Weedon, G.P. & Yeh, P. 2011. Multimodel Estimate of<br />

the Global Terrestrial Water Balance: Setup and First Results. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 12(5): 869-884.<br />

Hagen, L.J., Van Pelt, R.S., Zobeck, T.M. & Retta, A. 2007. Dust deposition near an eroding source field.<br />

Earth Surface Processes & Landforms, 32: 281–289.<br />

Haileslassie, A., Priess, J.A., Veldkamp, E. & Lesschen, J.P. 2007. Nutrient flows and balances at the field<br />

and farm scale: Exploring effects of land-use strategies and access to resources. Agricultural Systems, 94: 459–<br />

470.<br />

Håkansson, I. & Lipiec, J. 2000. A review of the usefulness of relative bulk density values in studies of soil<br />

structure and compaction. <strong>Soil</strong> Till. Res., 53: 71–85.<br />

Hakkenberg, R., Churkina, G., Rodeghiero, M., Börner, A., Steinhof, A. & Cescatti, A. 2008. Temperature<br />

sensitivity of the turnover times of soil organic matter in forests. Ecological Applications, 18: 119-131.<br />

Hamza, M. & Anderson, W. 2003. Responses of soil properties and grain yields to deep ripping and gypsum<br />

application in a compacted loamy sand soil contrasted with a sandy clay loam soil in Western Australia. Aust.<br />

J. Agr. Res., 54: 273–282.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

153


Hamza, M.A. & Anderson, W.K. 2005. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction in cropping systems. A review of the nature, causes<br />

and possible solutions. <strong>Soil</strong> Till.Res., 82(2): 121–145.<br />

Hansen, S., Maehlum, J.E. & Bakken, L.R. 1993. N 2<br />

O and CH 4<br />

fluxes in soil influenced by fertilization and<br />

tractor traffic. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biogeochemistry, 25(5): 621-630<br />

Hartemink, A.E. 1998. Acidification and pH buffering capacity of alluvial soils under sugarcane. Experimental<br />

Agriculture, 34: 231-243<br />

Harter, R.D. 2007. Acid soils of the tropics. ECHO Technical Note. 11 pp.<br />

Haynes, R.J. & Swift, R.S. 1986. Effects of soil acidification and subsequent leaching on levels of extractable<br />

nutrients in a soil. Plant and soil, 95: 327-336.<br />

Heimsath, A.M., DiBiase, R.A. & Whipple, K.X. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> production limits and the transition to bedrockdominated<br />

landscapes. Nature Geoscience, 5(3): 210-214.<br />

Helyar, K.R. & Porter, W.M. 1989. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification, its measurement and the processes involved. In A.<br />

Robson, ed. <strong>Soil</strong> acidity and plant growth. Academic Press Australia.<br />

Heuscher, S.A., Brandt, C.C. & Jardine, P.M. 2005. Using soil physical and chemical properties to estimate<br />

bulk density. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 69: 51–56.<br />

Hicks, W.K., Kuylenstierna, J.C.I., Owen, A., Dentener, F., Seip, H.-M. & Rodhe, H. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> sensitivity<br />

to acidification in Asia: status and prospects. Ambio, 37: 295-303.<br />

Hiederer, R. & Köchy, M. 2011. Global <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon Estimates and the Harmonized World <strong>Soil</strong> Database.<br />

EUR 25225 EN. Publications Office of the European Union.79 pp.<br />

Hiederer, R., Ramos, F., Capitani, C., Koeble, R., Blujdea, V., Gomez, O., Mulligan, D. & Marelli, L. 2010.<br />

Biofuels: a New Methodology to Estimate GHG Emissions from Global Land Use Change - A methodology involving<br />

spatial allocation of agricultural land demand and estimation of CO 2<br />

and N 2<br />

O emissions. EUR 24483 EN. Joint Research<br />

Centre. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 150 pp.<br />

Hiernaux, P., Fernandez-Rivera, S., Schlecht, E., Turner, M.D. & Williams, T.O. 1998. Livestock-mediated<br />

nutrient transfers in Sahelian agro-ecosystems. In G. Renard, A. Neef, K. Becker, M. & von Oppen, eds., <strong>Soil</strong><br />

fertility management in West African land use systems, pp. 339–347. Germany, Weikersheim, Margraf Verlag.<br />

Hillel, D. & Rosenzweig, C. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon and climate change. CSA News, 54(6): 1-8.<br />

Hinsinger, P., Bengough, A.G., Vetterlein, D. & Young, I.M. 2009. Rhizosphere: biophysics, biogeochemistry<br />

and ecological relevance. Plant <strong>Soil</strong>, 321: 117-152.<br />

Hoeksema, J.D., Lussenhop, J. & Teeri, J.A. 2000. <strong>Soil</strong> nematodes indicate food web responses to elevated<br />

atmospheric CO 2<br />

. Pedobiologia (Jena), 44(6): 725-735.<br />

Horn, R., Fleige, H., Richter, F.-H., Czyz, E.A., Dexter, A., Diaz-Pereira, Dumitru, E., Enarche, R., Mayol,<br />

F., Rajkai, K., De la Rosa, D. & Simota, C. 2005. SIDASS project Part 5: Prediction of mechanical strength of<br />

arable soils and its effects on physical properties at various map scales. <strong>Soil</strong> Till.Res., 82: 47-56.<br />

Houghton, R.A. 1995. Changes in the storage of industrial carbon since 1850. In R. Lal, J.M. Kimble, E. Levine<br />

& B.A. Stewart, eds. <strong>Soil</strong>s and global change, pp.45-65. Boca Raton, FL, CRC/Lewis.<br />

Howarth, R., Billen, G., Swaney, D., Townsend, A., Jaworski, N., Lajtha, K., Downing, J.A., Elmgren, R.,<br />

Caraco, N., Jordan, T., Berendse, F., Freney, J., Kudeyarov, V., Murdoch, P. & Zhao-Liang, Z. 1996. Regional<br />

nitrogen budgets and riverine N & P fluxes for the drainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: Natural and human<br />

influences. Biogeochemistry, 35: 75–139.<br />

Howitt, R.E., Medellin-Azuara, J., MacEwan, D., Lund, J. R. & Sumner, D.A. 2014. Economic Analysis of the<br />

2014 Drought for California Agriculture. USA, Davis, CA, University of California, Center for Watershed Sciences,<br />

20 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

154


Hue, N.V. & Licudine, D.L. 1999. Amelioration of subsoil acidity through surface application of organic<br />

manures. Journal of environmental quality, 28: 623-632.<br />

Hugh, B. & Ravenscroft, P. 2009. Arsenic in groundwater: a threat to sustainable agriculture in South and<br />

South-east Asia. Environment International, 35(3): 647-654.<br />

Husnain, H., Masunaga, T. & Wakatsuki, T. 2010. Field assessment of nutrient balance under intensive<br />

rice-farming systems, and its effects on the sustainability of rice production in Java Island, Indonesia. Journal of<br />

Food and Environmental Sciences, 4: 1–11.<br />

Imhoff, S., Da Saliva, A.P. & Fallow, D. 2004. Susceptibility to compaction, load support capacity and soil<br />

compressibility of Hapludox. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 68: 17-24.<br />

Intergovenmiental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios.<br />

Cambridge University Press, UK.<br />

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1995. Climate Change 1995. Working Group 1. IPPC,<br />

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<br />

Jansson, C., Wullschleger, S.D., Kalluri, U.C. & Tuskan, G.A. 2010. Phytosequestration: Carbon<br />

Biosequestration by Plants and the Prospects of Genetic Engineering. BioScience, 60(9): 685-696.<br />

Jenny, H. 1930. A study on the influence of climate upon nitrogen and organic matter content of soil. Misouri Agr.<br />

Exp. Sta. Res. Bulletin No. 52. Columbia, Mo, University of Missouri.<br />

Jjemba, P.K. 2002. The potential impact of veterinary and human therapeutic agents in manure and<br />

biosolids on plants grown on arable land: a review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ, 93(1-3): 267–278<br />

Jobbágy, E.G. & Jackson, R.B. 2000. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to<br />

climate and vegetation. Ecological Applications, 10: 423-436.<br />

Johnson, D.W., Turner, J. & Kelly, J.M. 1982. The effects of acid rain on forest nutrient status. Water resources<br />

research, 18: 449-461.<br />

Johnson, L.C. 1987. <strong>Soil</strong> loss tolerance: Fact or myth. Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> and Water Conservation, 42(3): 155-160.<br />

Jones, M.C. & Graves, B. 2010. State experiences with emerging contaminants – recommendations for Federal<br />

Action. Environmental council of the States (ECOS) Green Report. 42 pp.<br />

Jouve, P. & Oussible, M. 1979. Conséquence du t,assement du sol sur l’environement et la production de<br />

plantation de canne à sucre dans le Gharb: Hommes, Terres et Eaux. Bull. de l’Association Nationale pour<br />

l’Aménagement Foncier, l’Irrigation et le Drainage. Rabat, Morocco. 9(32): 69-83.<br />

Kaup, E. & Burgess, J.S. 2002. Surface and subsurface flows of nutrients in natural and human impacted<br />

lake catchments on Broknes, Larsemann Hills, Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 14: 343–352.<br />

Kendy, E., Molden, D. J., Steenhuis, T. S. & Liu, C. 2003. Policies drain the North China Plain: agricultural policy<br />

and ground water depletion in Luancheng County, 1949–2000. IWMI Research Paper 71. Sri Lanka, Colombo, IWMI.<br />

Kern, J.S. 1994. Spatial Patterns of <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon in the Contiguous United States. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J.,<br />

58: 439–455.<br />

Kerr, Y.H., Waldteufel, P., Wigneron, J.P., Martinuzzi, J.M., Font, J. & Berger, M. 2001. <strong>Soil</strong> moisture<br />

retrieval from space: the <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Senss.,<br />

39: 1729–1735.<br />

Khai, N.M., Ha, P.Q. & Öborn, I. 2007. Nutrient flows in small-scale peri-urban vegetable farming systems<br />

in Southeast Asia—A case study in Hanoi. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 122: 192–202.<br />

Kho, R.M., Yacouba, B., Yayé, M., Katkoré, B., Moussa, A., Iktam, A. & Mayaki, A. 2001. Separating the<br />

effects of trees on crops: the case of Faidherbia albida and millet in Niger. Agroforestry Systems, 52: 219–238.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

155


Kibblewhite, M.G., Ritz, K. & Swift, M.J. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> health in agricultural systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.<br />

London B Biol. Sci., 363(1492): 685-701.<br />

Kirschbaum, M.U.F. 1995. The temperature dependence of soil organic matter decomposition, and the<br />

effect of global warming on soil organic storage. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 27: 753-760.<br />

Kirschbaum, M.U.F. 2000. Will changes in soil organic carbon act as a positive or negative feedback on<br />

global warming? Biogeochemistry, 48: 21-51.<br />

Kirschbaum, M.U.F. 2006. The temperature dependence of organic-matter decomposition – still a topic of<br />

debate. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 38: 2510-2518.<br />

Koocheki, A. 2000. The potential of saltbush (Atriplex spp.) as a fodder shrub for the arid lands of Iran. In G.<br />

Gintzburger, M. Bounejmate & A. Nefzaoui, eds. Fodder Shrub Development in Arid and Semiarid Zones. Vol. 1, pp.<br />

178-183. Syria, Aleppo, ICARDA.<br />

Kopáček, J., Hardekopf, D., Majer, V., Šenáková, P., Tuchlík, E. & Veselý, J. 2004. Response of alpine lakes<br />

and soils to changes in acid deposition: the MAGIC model applied to the Tatra Mountain region, Slovakia-<br />

Poland. Journal of Limnology, 63(1): 143-156.<br />

Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B. & Rubel, F. 2006. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate<br />

classification updated. Meteorol. Z., 15: 259-263.<br />

Krmenec, A.J. 2000. Vehicle traffic and soil compaction. Poster at Midwest Farm Progress Show, IL.<br />

Kroulik, M., Kumhala, F., Hula, J. & Honzik, I. 2009. The evaluation of agricultural machines field trafficking<br />

intensity for different soil tillage technologies. <strong>Soil</strong> Till.Res., 105: 171-175.<br />

Lal, R. 1987. Management the soils of sub Saharan Africa. Science, 236: 1069-1076.<br />

Lal, R. 1999. <strong>Soil</strong> Management and restoration for C sequestration to mitigate the accelerated greenhouse<br />

effect. Progress in Environmental Science, 1(4): 307-326.<br />

Lal, R. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration impacts on global change and food security. Science, 304: 1623–1627.<br />

Lal, R., Griffin, M., Apt, J., Lave, L., & Morgan, M.G. 2004. Managing soil carbon. Science, 304(5669): 393.<br />

Larney, F.J., Leys, J.F., Muller, J.F. & McTainsh, G.H. 1999. Dust and endosulfan deposition in cottongrowing<br />

area of northern New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Environmental Quality, 28: 692–701.<br />

Ledwith, T. 2011. Crisis in the Horn of Africa: Rethinking the humanitarian response. October 5, 2011. (Also<br />

available at http://www 2.unicef.org:60090/infobycountry/kenya_59997.html).<br />

Lenton, T.M. & Huntingford, C. 2003. Global terrestrial carbon storage and uncertainties in its temperature<br />

sensitivity examined with a simple model. Global Change and Biology, 9(10): 1333-1352.<br />

Li, J., Okin, G.S., Alvarez, L. & Epstein, H. 2007. Quantitative effects of vegetation cover on wind erosion<br />

and soil nutrient loss in a desert grassland of southern New Mexico, USA. Biogeochemistry, 85: 317–332.<br />

Li, P., Feng, X.B., Qiu, G.L., Shang, L.H., Li, Z.G. 2009. Mercury pollution in Asia: a review of the<br />

contaminated sites. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 168: 591-601.<br />

Liiri, M., Setälä, H., Haimi, J., Pennanen, T. & Fritze, H. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> Processes are not influenced by the<br />

functional complexity of soil decomposer food webs under disturbance. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 34: 1009-<br />

1020.<br />

Lin, C. & Melville, M.D. 1994. Acid sulphate soil-landscape relationships in the Pearl River Delta, southern<br />

China. Catena, 22: 105-120.<br />

Lin, X., Yin, C. & Xu., D. 1996. Input and output of soil nutrients in high-yield paddy fields in South China.<br />

In Proceedings of the international symposium on maximizing Rice Yields through Improved <strong>Soil</strong> and Environmental<br />

Management, pp. 93–97. Thailand, Khon Kaen.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

156


Liski, J., Ilvesniemi, H., Mäkelä, A. & Westman, C.J. 1999. CO 2<br />

emissions from soil in response to climate<br />

warming are overestimated: the decomposition of old soil organic matter is tolerant of temperature. Ambio,<br />

28: 171-174.<br />

Liu, J. & Hue, N.V. 2001. Amending subsoil acidity by surface applications of gypsum, lime, and composts.<br />

Communications in soil science and plant analysis, 32: 2117-2132.<br />

Lockwood, P., Wilson, B., Daniel, H. & Jones, M. 2003. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification and natural resource management:<br />

directions for the future. University of New England, Armidale.<br />

Lofts, S., Chapman, P.M., Dwyer, R.,; Mclaughlin, M.J., Schoeters, I., Sheppard, S.C., Adams, W.J.,<br />

Alloway, B.J., Antunes, P.M.C., Campbell, P.G.C., Davies, B., Degryse, F., De Vries, W., Farley, K.J., Garrett,<br />

R.G., Green, A., Jan, G.B., Hale, B., Harrass, M., Hendershot, W.H., Keller, A., Lanno, R., Tao, L., Liu, W.-<br />

X., Yibing, M., Menzie, C., Moolenaar, S.W., Piatkiewicz, W., Reimann, C., Rieuwerts, J.S., Santore, R.C.,<br />

Sauve, S. Schuetze, G. Schlekat, C., Skeaff, J., Smolders, E., Shu, T., Wilkins, J. & Zhao, F.-J. 2007. Critical<br />

loads of metals and other trace elements to terrestrial environments. Environmental Science and Technology,<br />

41(18): 6326-6331.<br />

Lowdermilk, W.C. 1942. Conquest of the land through seven thousand years. Agric. Bull. Vol. 99. Washington,<br />

DC, USA Dept. of Agric, <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation Service.<br />

Luo, Y., Wu, L., Liu, L., Han, C. & Li, Z. 2009. Heavy Metal Contamination and Remediation in Asian Agricultural<br />

Land. National Institute of Agro-Environmental Sciences, MARCO Symposium, Japan, October 5-7.<br />

MacDonald, G.K., Bennett, E.M., Potter, P.A. & Ramankutty, N. 2011. Agronomic phosphorus imbalances<br />

across the world’s croplands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108:<br />

3086–3091.<br />

Mackenzie, F.T., Ver, L.M. & Lerman, A. 2008. Coupled biogeochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen,<br />

phosphorus and sulphur in the land-ocean atmosphere system. In J.N. Galloway & J.M. Melillo, eds. Asian Change<br />

in the Context of Global Climate Change, pp. 42–100. New York, Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />

Mackey, B., Colin Prentice, I. C., Steffen, W., House, J.I., Lindenmayer, D., Keith, H. & Berry, S. 2013.<br />

Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nature Climate<br />

Change, 3: 552–557.<br />

Mahowald, N., Jickells, T.D., Baker, A.R., Artaxo, P., Benitez-Nelson, C.R., Bergametti, G., Bond, T.C.,<br />

Chen, Y., Cohen, D.D., Herut, B., Kubilay, N., Losno, R., Luo, C., Maenhaut, W., McGee, K.A., Okin, G.S.,<br />

Siefert, R.L. & Tsukuda, S. 2008. Global distribution of atmospheric phosphorus sources, concentrations and<br />

deposition rates, and anthropogenic impacts. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22: GB 4026.<br />

Marchand, C., Lallier-Vergès, E., Baltzer, F., Albéric, P., Cossa, D. & Baillif, P. 2006. Heavy metals<br />

distribution in mangrove sediments along the mobile coastline of French Guiana. Marine Chemistry, 98: 1-17.<br />

Marschner, B. & Noble, A.D. 2000. Chemical and biological processes leading to the neutralisation of<br />

acidity in soil incubated with litter materials. <strong>Soil</strong> biology and biochemistry, 32: 805-813.<br />

Materechera, S.A. 2008 Tillage and tractor traffic effects on soil compaction in horticultural fields used for<br />

peri-urban agriculture in a semi-arid environment of the North West Province, South Africa. <strong>Soil</strong> Till.Res., 103:<br />

11–15.<br />

Mattern, S., Fasbender, D. & Vanclooster, M. 2009. Discriminating sources of nitrate pollution in an<br />

unconfined sandy aquifer. Journal of Hydrology, 376: 275–284.<br />

McGarry, D. & Sharp, G. 2003. A rapid, immediate, farmer-usable method of assessing soil structure<br />

condition to support conservation agriculture. In L. García-Torres, J. Benites, A. Martínez-Vilela & A. Holgado-<br />

Cabrera, eds. Conservation agriculture: environment, farmers experiences, innovations, socio-economy, policy. 375 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

157


McNally, A., Funk, C., Husak, G., Michaelsen, J., Cappelaere, B., Demarty, J., Pellarin, T., Young, T.P.,<br />

Caylor, K.K., Riginos, C. & Veblen, K.E. 2013. Estimating Sahelian and East African soil moisture using the<br />

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 10: 1–35.<br />

McNutt, M. 2014. The drought you can’t see. Science, 345(6204): 1543.<br />

Menz, F.C. & Seip, H.M. 2004. Acid rain in Europe and the United States: an update. Environmental Science<br />

& Policy, 7: 253-265.<br />

Meyfroidt, P. & Lambin, E.F. 2011. Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to Deforestation. Annual<br />

Review of Environment and <strong>Resources</strong>, 36(1).<br />

Middleton, N. & Thomas D. 1997. World Atlas of Desertification, 2nd edition. London, Arnold Publication. 182<br />

pp.<br />

Miller, R.D. 1980. Freezing phenomena in soils. In D. Hillel, ed. Applications of soil physics. pp. 254-299. New<br />

York, NY, Academic Press.<br />

Miransari, M., Bahrami, H.A., Rejali, F. & Malakouti, M.J. 2008. Using arbuscular mycorrhiza to alleviate<br />

the stress of soil compaction on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) growth. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 40: 1197–<br />

1206.<br />

Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J.A. 2008. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop<br />

areas, yields, physiological types and net primary production in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 22:<br />

GB 1022.<br />

Montgomery, D.R. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of<br />

Sciences of the United States of America, 104: 13268-13272.<br />

Moormann, F.R. 1963. Acid sulphate soils (cat-clays) of tropics. <strong>Soil</strong> science, 95: 271-275.<br />

Moser, M. & Hohensinn, F. 1983. Geotechnical aspects of soil slips in Alpine regions. Engineering Geology, 19:<br />

185-211.<br />

Mubarak, A.R. & Nortcliff, S. 2010. Calcium Carbonate Solubilization through H-Proton Release from<br />

some Legumes Grown in Calcareous Saline-Sodic <strong>Soil</strong>. Land Degrad. Develop., 21: 29-39.<br />

Muhs, D.R., Budahn, J.R., Avila, A., Skipp, G., Freeman, J., Patterson, D., Ravi, S., D’Odorico, P.,<br />

Breshears, D.D., Field, J.P., Goudie, A.S. & Huxman, T.E. 2010. The role of African dust in the formation of<br />

Quaternary soils on Mallorca, Spain and implications for the genesis of Red Mediterranean soils. Quaternary<br />

Science Reviews, 29: 2518-2543.<br />

Muhs, D.R., Budahn, J.R., Prospero, J.M., Skipp, G. & Herwitz, S.R. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> genesis on the island of<br />

Bermuda in the Quaternary: The importance of African dust transport and deposition. Journal of Geophysical<br />

Research, 117: F 03025.<br />

Munson, S.M., Belnap, J. & Okin, G.S. 2011. Responses of wind erosion to climate-induced vegetation<br />

changes on the Colorado Plateau. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(10): 3854–3859.<br />

Mutert, E.W. 1996. Plant nutrient balances in the Asian and Pacific region- the consequences for agricultural<br />

production. Food & Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. 14 pp<br />

Mylona, S. 1996. Sulphur dioxide emissions in Europe 1880-1991 and their effect on sulphur concentrations<br />

and depositions. Tellus B, 48: 662-689.<br />

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). 2014. National Trends Network. NADP. (Also available<br />

at http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ntn/)<br />

Nejad, A.T. & Koocheki, A. 2000. Economic aspect of fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) in Iran. In<br />

G.Gintzburger, M. Bounejmate & A. Nefzaoui, eds. Fodder Shrub Development in Arid and Semi-arid Zones. Vol. 1,<br />

pp. 184-186. Proceedings of the Workshop on Native and Exotic Fodder Shrubs in Arid and Semi-arid Zones,<br />

October 27- November 2, 1996, Tunisia, Hammamet. Syria, Aleppo, ICARDA.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

158


Ng, H. 2010. Regional Assessment: <strong>Soil</strong> Contamination Policy and Practice in Asia. Asian Environmental<br />

Compliance and Enforcement Network (AECEN).<br />

Nielsen, U.N., Ayres, E., Wall, D.H. & Bardgett, R.D. 2011. <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity and carbon cycling: a review<br />

and synthesis of studies examining diversity-function relationships. Global Change Biology, 62: 105-116.<br />

NLWRA. 2001. Australian agricultural assessment 2001. Vol. 1. Canberra, National Land and Water <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Audit.<br />

Nyssen, J., Poesen, J., Moeyersons, J., Haile, M. & Deckers, J. 2008. Dynamics of soil erosion rates and<br />

controlling factors in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands - towards a sediment budget. Earth Surface Processes<br />

and Landforms, 33(5): 695-711.<br />

Oenema, O. 2004. Governmental policies and measures regulating nitrogen and phosphorus from animal<br />

manure in European agriculture. J Anim Sci, 82; 196–206.<br />

Okin, G.S., Gillette, D.A. & Herrick, J.E. 2006. Multi-scale controls on and consequences of aeolian<br />

processes in landscape change in arid and semi-arid environments. Journal of Arid Environments, 65: 253–275.<br />

Okin, G.S., Parsons, A.J., Wainwright, J., Herrick, J.E., Bestelmeyer, B.T., Peters, D.C. & Fredrickson, E.L.<br />

2009. Do changes in connectivity explain desertification? BioScience, 59(3): 237–244.<br />

Oldeman, I.R. 1992. Global extent of soil degradation. In ISRIC Bi-annual Report, pp. 19-36. The Netherlands,<br />

Wageningen.<br />

Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A. & Sombroek, W.G. 1991. World map of the status of human-induced soil<br />

degradation. An exploratory note (2nd revised ed.). The Netherlands, Wageningen, International <strong>Soil</strong> Reference<br />

and Information Center (ISRIC). 35 pp.<br />

Onduru, D.D. & Preez, C.C. 2007. Ecological and agro-economic study of small farms in sub-Saharan Africa.<br />

Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 27: 197–208.<br />

Orgiazzi, A., Dunbar, M.B., Panagos, P., de Groot, G.A. & Lemanceau, P. 2015. <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity and DNA<br />

barcodes: opportunities and challenges. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 80: 244-250.<br />

Orndorff, Z.W. & Daniels, W.L. 2004. Evaluation of acid-producing sulfidic materials in Virginia highway<br />

corridors. Environ. Geol., 46: 209–216.<br />

Osman, A.A., Rice, C. & Codling, E. 2008. Occurrence of antibiotics and hormones in a major agricultural<br />

watershed. Desalination, 226: 121-133.<br />

Ouimet, R., Arp, P.A., Watmough, S.A., Aherne, J. & DeMerchant, I. 2006. Determination and mapping<br />

of critical loads and exceedances for upland forests in eastern Canada. Water, Air and <strong>Soil</strong> Pollution, 172: 57–66.<br />

Oussible, M., Crookstone, P.K. & Larson, W.E. 1992. Sub-surface Compaction Reduces the Root and Shoot<br />

Growth and Grain of Wheat. Agron. J., 84: 34-38.<br />

Panagos, P., Hiederer, R., Van Liedekerke, M. & Bampa, F. 2013. Estimating soil organic carbon in Europe<br />

based on data collected through an European Network. Ecological Indicators, 24: 439-450.<br />

Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. & Wilkinson, R. 2006. Understanding and<br />

promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Animal Production Science, 46(11): 1407-1424.<br />

Pannier, F. 1979. Mangroves impacted by human-induced disturbance: a case study of the Orinoco Delta<br />

mangrove system. Environmental management, 3: 205-216.<br />

Pansak, W., Hilger, T. H., Dercon, G., Kongkaew, T. & Cadisch, G. 2008. Changes in the relationship<br />

between soil erosion and N loss pathways after establishing soil conservation systems in uplands of Northeast<br />

Thailand. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 128(3): 167-176.<br />

Paoletti, M.G., Favretto, M.R., Marchiorato, A., Bressan, M. & Babetto, M. 1993. Biodiversità in pescheti<br />

forlivesi. In M.G., Paoletti, ed. Biodiversità negli Agroecosistemi Osservatorio Agroambientale, pp. 20-56. Italy, Forli,<br />

Centrale Ortofrutticola. 159 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

159


Pons, L.J., van Breemen, N. & Driessen, P.M. 1982. Physiography of coastal sediments and development of<br />

potential acidity, part 1. In J.A. Kittrick, D.S. Fanning & L.R. Hossner, eds. Acid Sulfate Weathering, pp. 1-18. Special<br />

Publication No 10. US, Madison, WI, <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America.<br />

Post, W.M., Emanuel, W.R., Zinke, P.J. & Stangenberger, A.G. 1982. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon pools and world life zones.<br />

Nature, 298: 156-159.<br />

Posthumus, H. & Stroosnijder, L. 2010. To terrace or not: the short-term impact of bench terraces on soil<br />

properties and crop response in the Peruvian Andes. Environment, development and sustainability, 12(2): 263-276.<br />

Potere, D., Schneider, A., Schlomo, A. & Civco, D. 2009. Mapping urban areas on a global scale: which of<br />

the eight maps now available is more accurate? Int. J. Remote Sens., 24: 6531–6558.<br />

Powell, J.M. & Valentin, C. 1998. Effects of livestock on soil fertility in West Africa. In G. Renard, A. Neef,<br />

K. Becker, M. & von Oppen, eds. <strong>Soil</strong> fertility management in West African land use systems, p. 319–338. Germany,<br />

Weikersheim, Margraf Verlag.<br />

Prospero, J.M., Ginoux, P., Torres, O., Nicholson, S.E. & Gill, T.E. 2002. Environmental characterization<br />

of global sources of atmospheric soil dust identified with the Nimbus 7 Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer<br />

(TOMS) absorbing aerosol product. Reviews of Geophysics, 40(1): 1002.<br />

Prudencio, C.Y. 1993. Ring management of soils and crops in the west African semi-arid tropics: The case of<br />

the mossi farming system in Burkina Faso. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 47: 237–264.<br />

Qadir, M., Quillérou, E., Nangia, V., Murtaza, G., Singh, M., Thomas, R.J., Drechsel, P. & Noble, A.D.<br />

2014 Economics of Salt-induced Land Degradation and Restoration. Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Forum, 38(4): 282–295.<br />

Qadir, M., Qureshi, A.S. & Cheraghi, M.S. 2007. Extent and characterization of Salt-prone land resources<br />

in Iran and strategies for amelioration and management. Land Degradation and Development, 19: 214-227.<br />

Quang, D.V., Schreinemachers, P. & Berger, T. 2014. Ex-ante assessment of soil conservation methods in<br />

the uplands of Vietnam: An agent-based modelling approach. Agricultural Systems, 123: 108-119.<br />

Quinn, M.L. 1989. Early smelter sites: a neglected chapter in the history and geography of acid rain in the<br />

United States. Atmospheric Environment (1967), 23: 1281-1292.<br />

Quinton, J.N., Govers, G., Van Oost, K. & Bardgett, R.D. 2010. The impact of agricultural soil erosion on<br />

biogeochemical cycling. Nature Geoscience, 3(5): 311-314.<br />

Qureshi, A.S., McCornick, P.G., Qadir, M. & Aslam, Z. 2008. Managing salinity and waterlogging in the<br />

Indus Basin of Pakistan. Agricultural Water Management, 95: 1–10.<br />

Ramankutty, N., Evan, A., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. 2008. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution<br />

of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biochemical Cycles, 22: GB 1003.<br />

Ramisch, J.J. 2005. Inequality, agro-pastoral exchanges, and soil fertility gradients in southern Mali.<br />

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 105: 353–372.<br />

Rasmussen, K.J. 1985. Jordpakning ved forkelling belating. Summary: <strong>Soil</strong> compaction with different<br />

surface pressure. Tidsskrift för Planteavdelning, 89: 31-45.<br />

Ravi, S., D’Odorico, P., Breshears, D.D., Field, J.P., Goudie, A.S., Huxman, T.E., Li, J., Okin, G.S., Swap,<br />

R.J., Thomas, A.D., Van Pelt, R., Whicker, J.J. & Zobeck, T.M. 2011. Aeolian processes and the biosphere.<br />

Reviews of Geophysics, 449(3): RG 3001.<br />

Ravi, S., D’Odorico, P., Huxman, T.E. & Collins, S.L. 2010. Interactions Between <strong>Soil</strong> Erosion Processes and<br />

Fires: Implications for the Dynamics of Fertility Islands. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 63: 267–274.<br />

Ravi, S., Zobeck, T.M., Over, T.M., Okin, G.S. & D’Odorico P. 2006. On the effect of moisture bonding<br />

forces in air-dry soils on threshold friction velocity of wind erosion. Sedimentology, 53: 597–609.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

160


Reheis, M. 1997. Dust deposition downwind of Owens (dry) Lake, 1991–1994: Preliminary findings. Journal of<br />

Geophysical Research, 102: 25999–26008.<br />

Reuss, J.O. & Johnson, D.W. 1986. Acid deposition and acidification of soils and waters. Springer Science &<br />

Business Media, LLC. 119 pp.<br />

Reynolds, R., Neff, J., Reheis, M. & Lamothe, P. 2006. Atmospheric dust in modern soil on aeolian<br />

sandstone, Colorado Plateau (USA): Variation with landscape position and contribution to potential plant<br />

nutrients. Geoderma, 130: 108–123.<br />

Robock, A., Vinnikov, K.Y., Srinivasan, G., Entin, J.K., Hollinger, S.E., Speranskaya, N.A., Liu, S. &<br />

Namkhai, A. 2000. The global soil moisture data bank. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 81: 1281–1299.<br />

Robson, A.D. & Abbott, L.K. 1989. The effect of soil acidity on microbial activity in soils. In A. Robson, ed.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidity and plant growth. Academic Press Australia.<br />

Rodell, M., Beaudoing, H.K., L’Ecuyer, T.S., Olson, W.S., Famiglietti, J.S., Houser, P.R., Adler, R.,<br />

Bosilovich, M.G., Clayson, C.A., Chambers, D., Clark, E., Fetzer, E.J., Gao, X., Gu, G., Hilburn, K., Huffman,<br />

G.J., Lettenmaier, D.P., Liu, W.T., Robertson, F.R., Schlosser, C.A., Sheffield, J. & Wood, E.F. 2015 The<br />

Observed State of the Water Cycle in the Early 21 st Century. Submitted to Journal of Climate (in press).<br />

Roy, R.N., Misra, R. V, Lesschen, J.P. & Smaling, E.M.A. 2003. Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Nutrient Balance: Approaches<br />

and Methodologies. Rome, FAO.<br />

Rubey, W.W. 1951. Geologic history of sea water – an attempt to state the problem. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 62:<br />

1111–1147.<br />

Ruesch, A. & Gibbs, H. 2008. New Global Biomass Carbon Map for the Year 2000 Based on IPCC Tier-1 Methodology.<br />

US, Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.<br />

Ruser, R., Flessa, H., Schilling, R., Steindl, H. & Beese, F. 1998. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction and fertilization effects on<br />

nitrous oxide and methane fluxes in potato fields. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America Journal, 62: 1587-1595.<br />

Samaké, O., Smaling, E.M.A., Kropff, M.J., Stomph, T.J. & Kodio, A. 2005. Effects of cultivation practices<br />

on spatial variation of soil fertility and millet yields in the Sahel of Mali. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,<br />

109: 335–345.<br />

Sangare, S.K., Compaore, E., Buerkert, A., Vanclooster, M., Sedogo, M.P. & Bielders, C.L. 2012. Fieldscale<br />

analysis of water and nutrient use efficiency for vegetable production in a West African urban agricultural<br />

system. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 92: 207–224.<br />

Scharlemann, J.P.W., Tanner, E.V.J., Hiederer, R. & Kapos, V. 2014. Global soil carbon: understanding and<br />

managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Management, 5(1): 81-91.<br />

Schimel, D.S. 1995. Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle. Global Change Biology, 1: 77-91.<br />

Schindler, D.W., Hesslein, R.H., Wagemann, R. & Broecker, W.S. 1980. Effects of acidification on<br />

mobilization of heavy metals and radionuclides from the sediments of a freshwater lake. Canadian journal of<br />

fisheries and aquatic sciences, 37: 373-377.<br />

Schlecht, E., Hiernaux, P., Achard, F. & Turner, M.D. 2004. Livestock related nutrient budgets within<br />

village territories in western Niger. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 68: 199–211.<br />

Schmidt, M.W.I., Torn, M.S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I., Kleber, M., Kögel-<br />

Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D.A.C., Nannipieri, P., Rasse, D.P., Weiner, S. & Trumbore, S.E. 2011.<br />

Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature, 478: 49-56.<br />

Schmitter, P., Dercon, G., Hilger, T., Hertel, M., Treffner, J., Lam, N., Vien, T.D., & Cadisch, G. 2011. Linking<br />

spatio-temporal variation of crop response with sediment deposition along paddy rice terraces. Agric. Ecosyst.<br />

Environ., 140(1-2): 34-45.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

161


Setälä, H. & McLean, M.A. 2004. Decomposition rates of organic substrates in relation to the species<br />

diversity of soil saprophytic fungi. Oecologia, 139: 98-107.<br />

Setälä, H., Berg.M. & Jones, T.H. 2005: Trophic Structure and Functional redundancy in <strong>Soil</strong> Communities.<br />

In. Bardgett, R.D., Hopkins , D.W., and Usher, M, (Eds) Biological Diversity and Function in <strong>Soil</strong>s. Cambridge<br />

University Press, Cambridge UK , pp.236-249.<br />

Shamshuddin, J., Azuza, E.A., Shazana, M.A.R.S., Fauziah, C.I., Panhwar, Q.A. & Naher, U.A. 2014.<br />

Properties and management of acid sulfate soils in Southeast Asia for sustainable cultivation of rice, oil palm<br />

and cocoa. Advances in Agronomy, 124: 91-142.<br />

Shao, Y. 2000. Physics and Modelling of Wind Erosion. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publ.<br />

Shao, Y., Wyrwoll, K.-H., Chappell, A., Huang, J., Lin, Z., McTainsh, G.H., Mikami, M., Tanaka, T.Y.,<br />

Wang, X. & Yoon, S. 2011. Dust cycle: an e merging core theme in Earth system science. Aeolian Research, 2:<br />

181–204<br />

Sheffield, J. & Wood, E.F. 2007. Characteristics of global and regional drought, 1950-2000: Analysis of soil<br />

moisture data from off-line simulation of the terrestrial hydrologic cycle. J. Geophys. Res., 112(D 17115).<br />

Sheffield, J. & Wood, E.F. 2008. Global Trends and Variability in <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture and Drought Characteristics,<br />

1950–2000, from Observation-Driven Simulations of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle. J. Climate, 21: 432–458<br />

Sheffield, J. & Wood, E.F. 2011. Drought: Past Problems and Future Scenarios. UK, Earthscan. 192 pp.<br />

Sheffield, J., Wood, E.F., Chaney, N., Guan, K., Sadri, S., Yuan, X., Olang, L., Amani, A., Ali, A. & Demuth, S. 2014.<br />

A Drought Monitoring and Forecasting System for Sub-Sahara African Water <strong>Resources</strong> and Food Security.<br />

Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 95: 861–882.<br />

Shiel, R.S., Adey, M.A. & Lodder, M. 1988. The effect of successive wet/dry cycles on aggregate size<br />

distribution in a clay texture soil. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 39: 71-80.<br />

Shift <strong>Soil</strong> Remediation (SSR). 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> Contamination in West Africa, Shift <strong>Soil</strong> Remediation. (Also available at<br />

http://www.scribd.com/doc/71599035/<strong>Soil</strong>-Contamination-in-West-Africa.)<br />

Sidhu, D. & Duiker, S.W. 2006. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction in conservation tillage: crop impacts. Agronomy Journal, 98:<br />

1257-1264.<br />

Simpson, A.J., Song, G.X., Smith, E., Lam, B., Novotny, E.H. & Hayes, M.H.B., 2007. Unraveling the<br />

structural components of soil humin by use of solution-state nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.<br />

Environmental Science and Technology, 41 (3): 876--883.<br />

Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM). 2013. Management of Contaminated <strong>Soil</strong>s in South Australia. SKM.<br />

Singer, A., Zobeck, T., Poberezsky, L. & Argaman, E. 2003. The PM 10 and PM 2.5 dust generation potential<br />

of soils/sediments in the southern Aral Sea Basin, Uzbekistan. Journal of Arid Environments, 54(4): 705–728.<br />

Slattery, B. & Hollier, C. 2002. The impact of acid soils in Victoria. State of Victoria. Department of Natural<br />

<strong>Resources</strong> and Environment.<br />

Smaling, E.M.A. & Dixon, J. 2006. Adding a soil fertility dimension to the global farming systems approach,<br />

with cases from Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 116: 15–26.<br />

Smaling, E.M.A., Stoorvogel, J.J. & Windmeijer, P.N. 1993. Calculating soil nutrient balances in Africa at<br />

different scales. 2. District scale. Fertilizer Research, 35: 237–250.<br />

Smedley, P.L. 2003. Arsenic in groundwater—south and east Asia. In The World Bank, ed. Arsenic in ground<br />

water, pp. 179-209. US, Springer.<br />

Smil, V. 2000. Phosphorus in the environment: Natural Flows and Human Interferences. Annual Review of<br />

Energy and the Environment, 25: 53–88.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

162


Smith, K.A., McTaggart, I.P. & Tsuruta, H. 1997. Emissions of N 2<br />

O and NO associated with nitrogen<br />

fertilization in intensive agriculture, and the potential for mitigation. <strong>Soil</strong> Use and Management, 13(4): 296-304.<br />

Smith, P. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong>s and climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4: 1–6.<br />

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H.H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F.,<br />

Rice, C., Scholes, R.J., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V., Schneider,<br />

U., Towprayoon, S., Wattenbach, M. & Smith, J.U. 2008. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos.<br />

Transact. R. Soc., B., 363: 789–813.<br />

Smith, S.J., Pitcher, H. & Wigley, T.M.L. 2001. Global and regional anthropogenic sulphur dioxide emissions.<br />

Global and Planetary Change, 29: 99-119.<br />

Snyder, B.A., Baas, B. & Hendrix, F.P. 2009. Competition between invasive earthworms (Amynthas<br />

corticis, Megascolecidae) and native North American millipedes (Pseudopolydesmus erasus, Polydesmidae):<br />

Effects on carbon cycling and soil structure. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 41: 1442-1440.<br />

Soane, B.D. & van Ouwerkerk, C. 1994. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction problems in world agriculture. In B.D. Soane & C.<br />

van Ouwerkerk, eds. <strong>Soil</strong> Compaction in Crop Production, pp.1-21. The Netherlands, Amsterdam, Elsevier.<br />

Squires, V.R. & Glenn, E.P. 2011. Salination, Desertification and <strong>Soil</strong> Erosion. In The role of food, agriculture,<br />

forestry and fisheries in human nutrition. Australia, EOLSS.<br />

SSSA. 2008. Glossary of <strong>Soil</strong> Science Terms. Madison, WI, <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America.<br />

Steegen, A., Govers, G., Takken, I., Nachtergaele, J., Poesen, J. & Merckx, R. 2001. Factors controlling<br />

sediment and phosphorus export from two Belgian agricultural catchments. Journal of Environmental Quality,<br />

30(4): 1249-1258.<br />

Steiner, C., Teixeira, W.G., Lehmann, J., Nehls, T., de Macêdo, J.L.V., Blum, W.E.H. & Zech, W. 2007.<br />

Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly<br />

weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant <strong>Soil</strong>, 291: 275-290.<br />

Stigliani, W.M., Doelman, P., Salomon, W., Schulin, R., Smidt, G.R.B. & Van der Zee, S.E.A.T.M. 1991.<br />

Chemical time bombs. Environmental Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 33: 4-30.<br />

Stoorvogel, J. & Smaling, E. 1990. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in Sub-Saharan Africa: 1983-2000. Report<br />

28. The Netherlands, Wageningen.<br />

Stout, J.E., Warren, A. & Gill, T.E. 2009. Publication trends in aeolian research: An analysis of the<br />

Bibliography of Aeolian Research. Geomorphology, 105: 6–17.<br />

Sumner, M.E. & Noble, A.D. 2003. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification: the world story. In Z. Rengel, ed. Handbook of soil<br />

acidity, pp. 1-28. USA, New York, Marcel Dekker Inc.<br />

Sverdrup, H. & Warfvinge, P. 1993. The effects of soil acidification on the growth of trees, grass and herbs as<br />

expressed by the (Ca+Mg+K)/Al ratio. Reports in Ecology and Environmental Engineering 2. Sweden, Lund, Lund<br />

University, Department of Chemical Engineering II<br />

Tan, Z.X., Lal, R. & Wiebe, K.D. 2005. Global <strong>Soil</strong> Nutrient Depletion and Yield Reduction. Journal of<br />

Sustainable Agriculture, 26: 123–146.<br />

Tang, C. 2004. Causes and management of subsoil acidity. Super<strong>Soil</strong> 2004, 3 rd Australian New Zealand <strong>Soil</strong>s<br />

Conference, December 5-9, 2004. Australia, University of Sidney. 6 pp.<br />

Tarnocai, C., Canadell, J.G., Schuur, E.A.G., Kuhry, P., Mazhitova, G. & Zimov, S. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon<br />

pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 23(2): GB 2023.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

163


Tedersoo, L., Bahram, M., Polme, S., Koljalg, U., Yorou, N.S., Wijesundera, R., Ruiz, L.V., Vasco-Palacios,<br />

A.M., Thu, P.Q., Suija, A., Smith, M.E., Sharp, C., Saluveer, E., Saitta, A., Rosas, M., Riit, T., Ratkowsky,<br />

D., Pritsch, K., Poldmaa, K., Piepenbring, M., Phosri, C., Peterson, M., Parts, K., Partel, K., Otsing, E.,<br />

Nouhra, E., Njouonkou, A.L., Nilsson, R.H., Morgado, L.N., Mayor, J., May, T.W., Majuakim, L., Lodge,<br />

D.J., Lee, S.S., Larsson, K.-H., Kohout, P., Hosaka, K., Hiiesalu, I., Henkel, T.W., Harend, H., Guo, L-D.,<br />

Greslebin, A., Grelet, G., Geml, J., Gates, G., Dunstan, W., Dunk, C., Drenkhan, R., Dearnaley, J., De Kesel,<br />

A., Dang, T., Chen, X., Buegger, F., Brearley, F.Q., Bonito, G., Anslan, S., Abell, S. & Abarenkov, K. 2014.<br />

Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science, 346(6213): 1078-1088.<br />

Thomas, D.S.G. & Wiggs, G.F.S. 2008. Aeolian system responses to global change: Challenges of scale,<br />

process and temporal integration. Earth Surface Processes & Landforms, 33: 1396–1418.<br />

Thomas, G.W., Haszler, G.R. & Blevins, R.L. 1996. The effects of organic matter and tillage on maximum<br />

compactability of soils using the proctor test. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 161: 502–508.<br />

Tittonell, P. 2008. Targeting resources within diverse, heterogenous and dynamic farming systems of East Africa.<br />

Wageningen University. 320 pp. (PhD Thesis)<br />

Todd-Brown, K.E.O., Randerson, J.T., Post, W.M., Hoffman, F.M., Tarnocai, C., Schuur, E.A.G. & Allison,<br />

S.D. 2013. Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP 5 Earth system models and comparison<br />

with observations. Biogeosciences, 10: 1717–1736.<br />

Tote, C., Govers, G., Van Kerckhoven, S., Filiberto, I., Verstraeten, G. & Eerens, H. 2011. Effect of ENSO<br />

events on sediment production in a large coastal basin in northern Peru. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,<br />

36: 1776-1788.<br />

Tóth, J.A., Lajtha, K., Kotroczó, Z., Krakomperger, Caldwell, B., Bowden, R. & Papp, M. 2007. The effect<br />

of climate change on soil organic matter decomposition. Acta Silvatica & Lingaria Hungarica, 3: 1-11.<br />

Tracy, B.F. & Zhang, Y. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction, corn yield response and soil nutrient pool dynamics within<br />

an integrated crop-livestock system in Illinois. Crop Science Society of America, 48: 1211-1218.<br />

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2014. Contaminants and Media. Canada. (Also available at http://<br />

www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fcsi-rscf/cm-eng.aspx?qid=1200518.)<br />

Tsiafouli, M., Thébault, E., Sgardelis, S., de Ruiter, P., van der Putten, W.H., Birkhofer, K., Hemerik, L.,<br />

de Vries, F.T., Bardgett, R., Brady, M., Bjørnlund, L., Jørgensen, H., Christensen, S., D’Hertefeldt, T., Hotes,<br />

S., Hol, W.H.G., Frouz, J., Liiri, M., Mortimer, S., Setälä, H., Tzanopoulos, J., Uteseny, K., Karoline, Pižl, V.,<br />

Stary, J., Wolters, V. & Hedlund K. 2015. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Global<br />

Change Biology, 21: 973-985.<br />

Tuller, M. & Or, D. 2003. Retention of water in soil and the soil water characteristic curve. In <strong>Soil</strong> water<br />

characteristic, p. 1. Figure 1. USA. (Also available at http://www.engr.uconn.edu/environ/envphys/pdf/vadose_pdf/<br />

SWC_revised 01.pdf)<br />

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Summary Report, 2007. National <strong>Resources</strong> Inventory.<br />

Washington, DC, Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa, Center for Survey Statistics and<br />

Methodology, Iowa State University. 123 pp.<br />

UNEP DEWA/GRID-Europe. 2005. E-waste, the hidden side of IT equipment’s manufacturing and use.<br />

Chapter 5 – Early warning and Emerging Environmental. (Also available at http://www.grid.unep.ch/products/3_<br />

Reports/ew_ewaste.en.pdf)<br />

UNEP. 1992. Proceedings of the Ad-hoc Expert Group Meeting to Discuss Global <strong>Soil</strong> Databases and Appraisal<br />

of GLASOD/SOTER, February 24-28. Nairobi, UNEP.<br />

United Nations – UN News Center. 2011. UN declares famine in another three areas of Somalia. (Also available<br />

at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39225).<br />

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2010. Latin America and the Caribbean: Environment<br />

Outlook. UNEP.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

164


United Nations. 2008. World Urbanization Prospects: the 2007 Revision. Department of Economic and Social<br />

Affairs, Population Division.<br />

USGS. 2008. Mineral Commodity Summaries. USA, Reston, VA, USGS.<br />

van der Heijden, M.G.A., Klironomos, J.N., Ursic, M., Moutoglis, P., Streitwolf-Engel, R., Boller, T.,<br />

Wiemken, A. & Sanders, I.R. 1998. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem<br />

variability and productivity. Nature, 396: 69-72.<br />

Van der Putten, W.H., Anderson, J.M., Bardgett, R.D., Behan-Pelletier, V., Bignell, D.E., Brown, G.G.,<br />

Brown, V.K., Brussaard, L., Hunt, H.W., Ineson, P., Jones, T.H., Lavelle, P., Paul, E.A., St John, M., Wardle,<br />

D.A., Wojtowicz, T. & Wall, D.H. 2004. The sustainable services provided by soil biota. In D.H. Wall, ed. Sustaining<br />

biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in <strong>Soil</strong>s and Sediments, pp. 15-43. San Francisco, Island Press.<br />

Van Haveren, B.P. 1983. <strong>Soil</strong> bulk density as influenced by grazing intensity and soil type on a shortgrass<br />

prairie site. Journal of Range, 36: 586–588.<br />

Van Oost, K., Govers, G., de Alba, S. & Quine, T. A. 2006. Tillage erosion: a review of controlling factors<br />

and implications for soil quality. Progress in Physical Geography, 30(4): 443-466.<br />

Van Oost, K., Quine, T.A., Govers, G., De Gryze, S., Six, J., Harden, J.W., Ritchie, J.C., McCarty, G.W.,<br />

Heckrath, G., Kosmas, C., Giraldez, J.V., Marques da Silva, J.R. & Merckx, R. 2007. The impact of agricultural<br />

soil erosion on the global carbon cycle. Science, 318(5850): 626-629.<br />

Van Pelt, R.S. & Zobeck, T.M. 2007. Chemical constituents of fugitive dust. Environmental Monitoring and<br />

Assessment, 130: 3–16.<br />

Vanacker, V., von Blanckenburg, F., Govers, G., Molina, A., Poesen, J., Deckers, J. & Kubik, P. 2007.<br />

Restoring dense vegetation can slow mountain erosion to near natural benchmark levels. Geology, 35(4): 303-<br />

306.<br />

Vestreng, V., Myhre, G., Fagerli, H., Reis, S. & Tarrasón, L. 2007. Twenty-five years of continuous sulphur<br />

dioxide emission reduction in Europe. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7: 3663-3681.<br />

Vicent, T. (ed.) 2013. Emerging Organic Contaminants in Sludges: Analysis, Fate and Biological Treatment.<br />

Hdb Env Chem, 24: 1–30.<br />

Vitousek, P.M., Naylor, R., Crews, T., David, M.B., Drinkwater, L.E., Holland, E., Johnes, P.J.,<br />

Katzenberger, J., Martinelli, L.A., Matson, P.A., Nziguheba, G., Ojima, D., Palm, C.A., Robertson, G.P.,<br />

Sanchez, P.A., Townsend, A.R. & Zhang, F.S. 2009. Nutrient Imbalances in Agricultural Development.<br />

Science, 324: 1519–1520.<br />

Vlek, P.L.G., Kuhne, R.F. & Denich, M. 1997. Nutrient resources for crop production in the tropics.<br />

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 352: 975–985.<br />

Voegelin, A., Barmettler, K. & Kretzschmar, R. 2003. Heavy metal release from contaminated soils. Journal<br />

of environmental quality, 32: 865-875.<br />

Von Uexküll, H.R. & Mutert, E. 1995. Global extent, development and economic impact of acid soils. Plant<br />

and <strong>Soil</strong>, 171: 1-15.<br />

Voorhees, W.B., Nelson, W.W. & Randall, G.W. 1986. Extent and persistence of subsoil compaction caused<br />

by heavy axle loads. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 50: 428-433.<br />

Wagg, C., Bender, S.F., Widmer, F. & van der Heijden, M.G.A. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity and soil community<br />

composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. PNAS, 111: 5266-5270.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

165


Wall, D.H., Bradford, M.A., St. John, M.G., Trofymow, J.A., Behan-Pelletier, V., Bignell, D.E., Dangerfield,<br />

J.M., Parton, W.J., Rusek, J., Voigt, W., Wolters, V., Gardel, H.Z., Ayuke, F.O., Bashford, R., Beljakova,<br />

O.I., Bohlen, P.J., Brauman, A., Flemming, S., Henschel, J.R., Johnson, D.L., Jones, T.H., Kovarova,<br />

M., Kranabetter, J.M., Kutny, L., Lin, K.-C., Maryati, M., Masse, D., Pokarzhevskii, A., Rahman, H.,<br />

Sabará, M.G., Salamon, J.-A., Swift, M.J., Varela, A., Vasconcelos, H.L., White, D. & Zou, X. 2008. Global<br />

decomposition experiment shows soil animal impacts on decomposition are climate dependent. Global Change<br />

Biology, 14(11): 2661-2677.<br />

Wallace, A. 1994. <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter must be restored to near original levels. Communications in soil science<br />

plant analysis, 25: 29-35.<br />

Wang, Y.F., Zhang, W.F. & Zhang, F.S. 2010. China’s fertilizer management system: situation, problems<br />

and prospect. Xiandai Huagong/Modern Chemical Industry, 31: 6-13.<br />

Wang, Z., Van Oost, K., Lang, A., Quine, T., Clymans, W., Merckx, R., Notebaert, B. & Govers, G. 2014.<br />

The fate of buried organic carbon in colluvial soils: a long-term perspective. Biogeosciences, 11(3): 873-883.<br />

Wardle, D.A., Bardgett, R.D., Klironomos, J.N., Setälä, H., Van Der Putten W.H. & Wall, D.H. 2004.<br />

Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowground biota. Science, 304(5677): 1629-1633.<br />

Warren, S.D., Thurow, T.L., Blackburn, W.H. & Garza, N.E. 1986. The influence of livestock trampling<br />

shortgrass prairie site. Journal of Range Manage, 36: 586–588.<br />

Webb, N.P. & Strong, C.L. 2011. <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility dynamics and its representation for wind erosion and dust<br />

emission models. Aeolian Research, 3: 165–179.<br />

Webb, N.P., Chappell, A., Strong, C.L., Marx, S.K. & McTainsh, G.H. 2012. The significance of carbonenriched<br />

dust for global carbon accounting. Global Change Biology, 18: 3275–3278.<br />

Wei, C.Y. & Chen, T.B. 2001. Hyperaccumulators and phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soil:<br />

a review of studies in China and abroad. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 21: 1196-1203.<br />

Wendelin, G. 1646. Pluvia pupurea Bruxellensis. Parisiis, Apud Ludivicum de Heuqueville.<br />

Wezel, A., Rajot, J.-L. & Herbrig, C. 2000. Influence of shrubs on soil characteristics and their function in<br />

Sahelian agro-ecosystems in semi-arid Niger. Journal of Arid Environments, 44: 383–398.<br />

White, R.E. 1987. Introduction to the principles and practice of soil science. Blackwell Sci. Publication.<br />

Whitfield, C.J., Aherne, J., Watmough, S.A. & McDonald, M. 2010. Estimating the sensitivity of forest soils<br />

to acid deposition in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta, Canada. Journal of Limnology, 69(1): 201–208.<br />

Wiggs, G.F.S., Baird, A.J. & Atherton, R.J. 2004. The dynamic effects of moisture on the entrainment and<br />

transport of sand by wind. Geomorphology, 59: 13–30.<br />

Wilke, B.M., Duke, B.J. & Jimoh, W.L.O. 1984. Mineralogy and chemistry of harmattan dust in Northern<br />

Nigeria. Catena, 11: 91-96.<br />

Willatt, S.T. & Pullar, D.M. 1983. Changes in soil physical properties under grazed pastures. Aust. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Res.,<br />

22: 343-348.<br />

Williams, A., Funk, C., Michaelsen, J., Rauscher, S., Robertson, I., Wils, T., Koprowski, M., Eshetu, Z.<br />

& Loader, N. 2011. Recent summer precipitation trends in the Greater Horn of Africa and the emerging role of<br />

Indian Ocean sea surface temperature. Climate Dynamics, 39(9-10): 2307-2328.<br />

Wittmann, H. & von Blanckenburg, F. 2009. Cosmogenic nuclide budgeting of floodplain sediment<br />

transfer. Geomorphology, 109(3-4): 246-256.<br />

Wolt, J.D. 1981. Sulfate retention by acid sulphate-polluted soils in the Copper Basin area of Tennessee. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Science Society of America Journal, 45: 283-287.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

166


Wood, M.K. & Blackburn, W.H. 1984. Vegetation and soil responses to cattle grazing systems in the Texas<br />

Rolling Plains. Journal Range Management, 37: 303-308.<br />

Xu, R.K., Coventry, D.R., Farhoodi, A. & Schultz, J.E. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification as influenced by crop<br />

rotations, stubble management, and application of nitrogenous fertiliser, Tarlee, South Australia. Australian<br />

Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 40: 483-496.<br />

Yue, X., Wang, H., Wang, Z. & Fan, K. 2009. Simulation of dust aerosol radiative feedback using the Global<br />

Transport Model of Dust: 1. Dust cycle and validation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012),<br />

114(D 10).<br />

Zentner, R., McConkey, B., Campbell, C., Dyck, F. & Selles, F. 1996. Economics of conservation tillage in<br />

the semiarid prairie. Can. J. Plant Sci., 76(4): 697-705.<br />

Zhao, Y., Duan, L., Xing, J., Larssen, T., Nielsen, C.P. & Hao, J. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification in China: is controlling<br />

SO 2<br />

emissions enough? Environmental Science and Technology, 43: 8021-8026.<br />

Zobeck, T.M. & Bilbro, J.D. 2001. Crop productivity and surface soil properties of a severely wind eroded<br />

soil. In D.E. Stott, R.H. Mohtar & G.C. Steinhardt, eds. Sustaining the Global Farm, pp. 617-622. Selected Papers<br />

From the 10th International <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation Organization Meeting. West Lafayette, IN, International <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Conservation Organization.<br />

Zobeck, T.M. & Van Pelt, R.S. 2011. Wind erosion. In L. Hatfield & T.J. Sauer, eds. <strong>Soil</strong> Management: Building a<br />

Stable Base for Agriculture, pp. 209–227. Madison, WI, <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America, Inc.<br />

Zobeck, T.M. 1991. <strong>Soil</strong> properties affecting wind erosion. Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> & Water Conservation, 46(2): 112–118.<br />

Zreda, M., Shuttleworth, W.J., Zeng, X., Zweck, C., Desilets, D., Franz, T. & Rosolem, R. 2012. COSMOS:<br />

The COsmic-ray <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Observing System. Hydrology and Earth System Science, 16: 4079-4099.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Global soil status, processes and trends<br />

167


<strong>Soil</strong> change:<br />

impacts and responses<br />

Coordinating Lead Authors:<br />

Chencho Norbu (Bhutan), David Robinson (United Kingdom), Miguel Taboada (Argentina)<br />

Contributing Authors:<br />

Marta Alfaro (Chile), Richard Bardgett (United Kingdom), Sally Bunning (United Kingdom), Jana Compton<br />

(United States), William Critchley (United Kingdom), Warren Dick (United States), Scott Fendorft (United<br />

States), Gustavo Ferreira (Uruguay), Tsuyushi Miyazaki (Japan), Carl Obst (Australia), Dani Or (Switzerland),<br />

Dan Pennock (ITPS/Canada), Matthew Polizzotto (United States), Dan Richter (United States), Marta Rivera-<br />

Ferre (Spain), Sonia Seneviratne (Switzerland), Pete Smith (United Kingdom), Garrison Sposito (United States),<br />

Susan Trumbore (United States) and Kazuhiko Watanabe (Japan).<br />

Reviewing Authors:<br />

Dominique Arrouays (ITPS/France), Richard Bardgett (United Kingdom), Marta Camps Arbestain (ITPS/New<br />

Zealand), Tandra Fraser (Canada), Ciro Gardi (Italy), Neil McKenzie (ITPS/Australia), Luca Montanarella (ITPS/<br />

EC), Dan Pennock (ITPS/Canada) and Diana Wall (United States).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

168


7 | The impact of soil change<br />

on ecosystem services<br />

7.1 | Introduction<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s are now recognized to be in the ‘front line’ of global environmental change and we need to be able to<br />

predict how they will respond to changing climate, vegetation, erosion and pollution. This requires a better<br />

understanding of the role of soils in the Earth system to ensure that they continue to provide for humanity<br />

and the natural world (Schmidt et al., 2011). Although only a thin layer of material at the Earth’s surface, soils<br />

like many interfaces play a pivotal role in regulating the flow and transfer of mass and energy between the<br />

atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere. Moreover, the structure and organization of soils leaves<br />

an important imprint on the Earth’s surface in terms of how land is used and how ecosystems develop. <strong>Soil</strong>s<br />

help regulate the Earth’s physical processes such as water and energy balances, and act as the biogeochemical<br />

engine at the heart of many of the Earth system cycles and processes on which life depends. Some soil processes<br />

contribute directly to the delivery of ecosystem goods and services, while other soil processes influence the<br />

delivery of goods and services. This section examines how soil processes affect soil and ecosystem function<br />

and the production of goods and services of benefit to humanity.<br />

Humanity has had an indelible impact on the Earth’s surface, so much so that it has been proposed that the<br />

planet has entered a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2002). A population of ca. 7 billion<br />

people that will likely grow to 9.6 billion by 2050 is stressing Earth’s resources. Maintaining the planet in an<br />

equitable state for human life is perhaps our greatest challenge. Currently, humans have adapted 38 percent<br />

of the earth’s ice-free land surface to agriculture, crops and pasture (Foley et al., 2011). Agricultural production,<br />

driven by the need to produce food for a growing population, has had a tremendous impact on our ecosystems<br />

and resources, especially through the abstraction of water and the leaving of residues. Rockström et al. (2009)<br />

proposed that we need a ‘safe operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth system’. They argue that<br />

that there exist biophysical planetary boundaries (or thresholds) which it is inadvisable to cross if we are to<br />

maintain the needed balance. Vince and Raworth (2012) adapted these concepts to include social goals (1).<br />

This presentation underlines the fact that we live in a coupled human earth system. The ecosystem services<br />

analytic approach has been developed in order to bridge the science/policy divide. The approach aims to make<br />

the concepts clear for all and to set out what needs to be considered in order for humanity to live within<br />

sustainable boundaries.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

169


<strong>Soil</strong>s and soil security are at the heart of this effort. <strong>Soil</strong> security is defined in McBratney, Field and Koch<br />

(2014) as “maintaining and improving the world’s soil resources to produce food, fibre and freshwater, to<br />

contribute to energy and climate sustainability, and to maintain the biodiversity and the overall protection of<br />

the ecosystem”. <strong>Soil</strong>s perform important ecosystem services (e.g. functions for humanity) including: biomass<br />

production; storing, filtering and transforming nutrients and water; maintaining a gene pool; providing a<br />

source of raw material for products such as bricks and tiles; regulating climate and hydrology; and providing<br />

an archive of cultural heritage. <strong>Soil</strong>s provide ecosystem goods and services directly but some soil processes can<br />

have an adverse impact on the delivery of ecosystem goods and services. The ability of soils to function can<br />

be threatened by human activity (on this, see the <strong>Soil</strong> Thematic Strategy, SEC, 2006). A growing population,<br />

resource extraction, agricultural production, land use change and climate change all contribute to this threat.<br />

As population increases, food security is becoming more important in the global agenda. Our historical<br />

solution to producing more food has been to mechanize, cultivate more land, and increase the application<br />

of plant nutrients and water. This has led to an almost linear increase in production over time (Pretty, 2008).<br />

However, the rate of increase is likely to plateau, as has already been seen with wheat in Northern Europe<br />

and with rice in Korea and China (Cassman, Grassini and Wart, 2010). In addition, agricultural growth comes<br />

with environmental costs or externalities, which are costs not accounted for in the cost of production. The<br />

degradation caused can adversely affect everyone, and even the production systems themselves - for instance,<br />

declines in pollinators can threaten future production (Deguines et al., 2014).<br />

Figure 7.1 The 11 dimensions of society’s ‘social foundation’ and the nine dimensions of the ‘environmental ceiling’ of the planet.<br />

Source: Vince and Raworth, 2012.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

170


Rockström et al. (2009) suggest we are approaching the limits of the planet’s cultivatable land, while<br />

the addition of nutrients, especially nitrogen, continues to overload many terrestrial-aquatic systems (Diaz<br />

and Rosenberg, 2008). At the same time, arable production has seen declines in the carbon content of soils<br />

- the largest terrestrial carbon reservoir – and these declines are affecting other soil functions, including<br />

water and nutrient retention (Reynolds et al., 2013). Food production systems will need to change to create<br />

multifunctional agro-ecosystems capable of maintaining a balance between yields, soil functions and<br />

biological diversity. Within the field of ecology, this challenge has led to a rigorous debate concerning the loss<br />

of natural species from agricultural lands - often termed, the ‘land sparing, land sharing’ debate (Green et al.,<br />

2005). This debate has now been integrated within the broad ecosystem services discussion whose central<br />

ten also focuses on human interaction with ecosystems and their long-term sustainability and continued<br />

functionality (MA, 2005).<br />

Conceptually, Foley et al. (2005) proposed that a natural ecosystem provides a range of goods and services<br />

(2) while on intensively farmed agricultural land, crop production dominates at the expense of all other goods<br />

and services. They proposed that an ideal situation would be one of balance, with the system producing a<br />

range of goods and services including food – the ‘sharing’ side of the land sparing/ land sharing debate.<br />

Organic agriculture has been seen as a model of this sharing or balance. However, organic agriculture has<br />

so far generally failed to maintain productivity levels in either crop or livestock systems (Pretty, 2008). The<br />

implication is that organic agriculture does not yet promise balance, because it requires more land and more<br />

use of natural capital to maintain production levels. Determining if there are viable ‘sharing’ systems should<br />

continue to be an important research goal but for the moment ‘sparing’ appears to have the upper hand in the<br />

debate (Phalan et al., 2011). But how do we achieve sustainable intensification? While the viability of sharing<br />

remains in question, should we focus on a narrow-minded, single service supply management strategy, e.g.<br />

arable soils for crop production or peat soils for carbon storage? Sustainable intensification research, which<br />

seeks to find ways of optimizing production while blending in new strategies for multifunctional ecosystem<br />

service management, is being championed as a way forward (Firbank et al., 2013).<br />

There is no single solution. Foley’s conceptual diagram (2) highlights the challenges and possible tradeoffs:<br />

a natural ecosystem delivers a wide range of ecosystem services but scant production; and an intensive<br />

cropland system delivers royally on production but precious little on ecosystem services. A balanced system<br />

of cropland with restored ecosystem services would deliver on all services, including production. A recent<br />

synthesis and analysis of data from the Countryside Survey, a national survey of Great Britain, suggests that<br />

Foley’s conceptual diagram of intensive cropland (2) is the current situation. Different services reach optimums<br />

at different points along the productivity gradient, but we cannot have everything (3). The ecosystem service<br />

indicators alter, often in a non-linear way with the proportion of intensive land use – but with exception of<br />

production, they all decline with intensification. 3 b and c go on to show that changes in moisture inputs or<br />

moisture regime, or alteration of soil pH would change the service delivery balance. At no point do we get<br />

everything, so we will need to choose priorities with our current systems.<br />

Figure 7.2 Conceptual framework for comparing land use and trade-offs of ecosystem services. Source: Foley et al., 2005.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

171


The land sparing, land sharing approach can also been framed in terms of resilience (sharing) and efficiency<br />

(sparing). Efficient systems by their very nature will prioritise the performance of one function over that of<br />

others. The degree to which others are affected will depend on whether they perform well under similar<br />

management or not. Currently, the data in 3 indicate that the choice lies between efficiency and redundancy.<br />

We can have an efficient carbon storage system, e.g. peat development, which may also perform well as a<br />

climate thermal buffer because the conditions for peat accumulation require lots of water, but it will not be<br />

productive for crops in that state, nor will the arable system have high biodiversity as this is inefficient.<br />

Choices need to be made as to what types of systems we wish to promote. In light of this, the focus of this<br />

chapter is to assess the global scientific literature and understand how soil change discussed in Chapters 5<br />

and 6 is likely to impact soil functions and the likely consequences for ecosystem service delivery. Each section<br />

of this chapter outlines key soil processes involved with the delivery of goods and services and how these are<br />

changing or - where evidence permits - may change. Each section then reviews how this change impacts soil<br />

function and affects ecosystem service delivery. Some soil change does not produce an ecosystem service, but<br />

does impact it; these impacts are considered when assessed as important and adverse. The focus is on the<br />

local, regional and global scales and follows the general reporting categories of the MA (2005) modified by<br />

TEEB (2014) to provisioning, regulating and cultural services. Towards the end of the section there is a focus on<br />

the links with policy, institutions and management.<br />

7.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and food security<br />

Keating et al. (2014) provide a useful frame for examining the main roles of soils in food supply through their<br />

development of the food wedge concept. The food wedge is the triangular area between the level of food<br />

demand in 2010 and the upper bound of food demand in 2050 (suggested by Keating and Carberry (2010) as a<br />

wedge equal to approximately 127 x 1015 kcal). The food wedge presented by Keating et al. (2014) assumes that<br />

food supply and demand were broadly in balance in 2010. Increases in food supply (through, for example, the<br />

strategies suggested by Foley et al., 2011) would increase the supply to meet the rising demand for food.<br />

Either the incremental loss of productivity from current agricultural land or the total loss of agricultural<br />

land due to degradation in the future would cause the lower boundary of the wedge to decrease and hence<br />

increase the gap between food supply and demand (Figure 7.4). This decrease (or total loss) could occur if the<br />

services for plant production supplied by the soil decreased due to a significant impairment of one or more<br />

of the soil functions. Alternatively the restoration of productivity to previously degraded land would increase<br />

plant production in addition to addressing the yield gap or increases in food delivery. Therefore a key soilfocused<br />

strategy is to reduce future productivity loss from agricultural soils due to degradation to a minimum<br />

and to restore productivity to soils that have previously experienced productivity losses.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

172


0.0 Response<br />

1.0<br />

Water quality<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> diversity<br />

Pollination (B'flies)<br />

Plant diversity<br />

Pollination (Bee)<br />

Freshwater diversity<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> C storage<br />

cSLA<br />

Cultural<br />

Figure 7.3 Response curves of mean ecosystem service<br />

indicators per 1-km 2 across Great Britain. Source: Maskell et<br />

al., 2013.<br />

The curves are fitted using generalized additive models to ordination<br />

axes constrained by; (a) proportion of intensive land (arable and<br />

improved grassland habitats) within each 1-km square from CS field<br />

survey data; (b) mean long-term annual average rainfall (1978–2005);<br />

and (c) mean soil pH from five random sampling locations in each 1-km<br />

square. All X axes are scaled to the units of each constraining variable<br />

0.0 Proportion of intensive land in 1km square<br />

1.0<br />

0 Response<br />

1.2<br />

cSLA<br />

Freshwater diversity<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> C storage<br />

Plant diversity<br />

Butt<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> diversity<br />

50 Rainfall (mm)<br />

5000<br />

0.0 Response<br />

1.0<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> C storage<br />

Water quality<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> diversity<br />

Pollination (B'flies)<br />

Freshwater diversity<br />

Plant diversity<br />

Pollination (Bee)<br />

cSLA<br />

Cultural<br />

2.0 Mean <strong>Soil</strong> pH<br />

9.0<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

173


The restoration of productivity on degraded soils can be complex insofar as soils may have been degraded<br />

to the point where they cannot readily respond to fertility-improving management techniques. These<br />

complex interactions among inherent soil properties, management history and the response to inputs is<br />

well illustrated in the work of Rusinamhodzi et al. (2013) on maize production intensification on smallholder<br />

farms in Zimbabwe. In this region two major controls of productivity exist – significant differences in yield<br />

between sandy and clay soils (e.g. inherent soil properties); and pronounced fertility gradients between more<br />

productive fields close to the homestead and more degraded soils in outfields further from the homestead<br />

(a management-induced fertility gradient common in many areas of Africa). The sandy soils required longterm<br />

additions of manure to restore soil functions before the benefit of the mineral fertilizer additions could<br />

begin to be realized; however even after nine years of substantial organic inputs, the highly degraded sandy<br />

outfields did not recover their productivity. The authors speculate that the initial soil organic carbon levels<br />

in the sandy outfields were too low for yields to recover. Moreover at the village scale, the overall amount of<br />

manure produced is insufficient to apply the required amounts of manure in all fields.<br />

Figure 7.4 The food wedge and the effect of soil change on the area of the wedge. Source: Keating et al., 2014.<br />

The relative sizes of the effects of soil change on the food wedge are not drawn to scale.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

174


One approach to maintaining soil health is ‘conservation agriculture’, which comprises a range of<br />

agricultural practices that include reduced tillage and no-till, greater retention of crop residues, and crop<br />

rotations. However, the lack of organic inputs which constrained productivity in the Zimbabwe example<br />

above also limits the ability of conservation agriculture to restore fertility in sub-Saharan Africa generally.<br />

Palm et al. (2014) found that the greatest obstacle to improving soil functions and other ecosystem services in<br />

Sub-Saharan Africa region is the lack of residues produced due to the low productivity of the soils. The limited<br />

supply of crop residues also highlights the need to make optimum use of all sources of organic inputs, such as<br />

animal manure and properly processed human wastes.<br />

These studies emphasize the inability of mineral fertilizers alone to significantly increase food production<br />

in regions where the yield gap is greatest. Removing the nutrient limitations through additions of mineral<br />

fertilizers alone will also exacerbate the range of environmental issues (e.g. N 2<br />

O emission from N-fertilizer,<br />

surface and groundwater contamination) in all food-producing regions unless the efficiency of crop use of<br />

agricultural inputs can be increased. Additionally the fraction of P available as mineable phosphate rock is<br />

finite. Recent concerns that the world’s supply of phosphorus was being rapidly depleted and that ‘peak<br />

phosphorus’ was only a few decades away (Cordell and White, 2010) have been dispelled, due to recent<br />

upward revisions of world phosphate rock reserves and resources (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010). However, the<br />

world supply of phosphorus is limited, and rising prices and market volatility are inevitable. More efficient use<br />

of phosphorus is therefore essential. This overall issue is termed the ‘Goldilocks’ problem by Foley et al. (2011) –<br />

there are many regions with too much or too little fertilizer but few that are ‘just right’.<br />

A final strategy is to minimize diversion of agricultural soils to production of non-food crops. Recent largescale<br />

bioenergy production on land previously used for food production has driven a significant land use<br />

change and represents a major shift of agricultural soils away from food production. Demand for soybean,<br />

maize and oil palm for biofuel has been a driver of agricultural land conversion in recent years particularly<br />

in Latin America. Conversion of existing cropland or the development of new cropland for bioethanol and<br />

biodiesel production competes with food production and carbon returns to the soil (Foley et al., 2011) and thus<br />

constitutes a threat to soil and food security. Biofuels produced from crops using conventional agricultural<br />

practices will exacerbate stresses on water supplies, water quality and land use. In any case, biofuels are not<br />

expected to mitigate the impact of climate change as compared with petroleum (Delucchi, 2011).<br />

Threats to the food security dimension ‘availability’ are mainly (but not only) caused by soil and land<br />

degradation and associated water resources (Khan et al., 2009). This is particularly the situation when the<br />

degradation is irreversible or very hard to reverse. This may, for example, be the case with severe topsoil losses<br />

caused by wind or water erosion, terrain deformation by gully erosion or mass movement, acidification,<br />

alkalinization/salinization, soil sealing, or contamination with toxic substances (Scherr, 1999; Palm et al.,<br />

2007; Mullan, 2013). The resulting loss of productivity will reduce yields from a site, leading to reduced returns<br />

to producers and, in some cases, abandonment of production at the site. Productivity may be restored, but<br />

economic considerations may limit the adoption of restorative measures.<br />

The impact of each threat on specific soil functions relevant to crop production has been covered in Chapter<br />

6 and is summarized in Figure 7.5. The present chapter will focus on the implications for food security of the<br />

trends in each threat.<br />

7.2.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

A summary by den Biggelaar et al. (2003) suggests that global mean rates of erosion are between 12 to 15<br />

tonnes ha -1 yr -1 (Table 7.1). The mid-point of this range yields a soil loss of 0.9 mm yr -1 (see Table 7.1), very similar<br />

to the mean soil loss of 0.95 mm yr -1 calculated by Montgomery (2007). Overall these rates are substantially<br />

higher than rates of soil formation, and hence pose a long-term global threat to soils (Montgomery, 2007; see<br />

also Section 6.1 above).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

175


Our understanding of the rates for the three erosion agents (wind, water and tillage) is uneven. Erosion<br />

rates due to water erosion remain very high (> ca. 20 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ) in cropland in many agricultural regions<br />

(Figure 7.2); essentially any cropped area with hilly land and sufficient precipitation is at risk. No reliable global<br />

estimates for current wind erosion rates exist, and the estimates of the human contribution to current dust<br />

emissions range from only 8 percent in North Africa to approximately 75 percent in Australia (see also Section<br />

6.1 above). Tillage erosion primarily results in in-field redistribution of soil, and decreases the productivity of<br />

soils in convex slope elements and near-upslope field or terrace borders. Global-scale summaries also require<br />

consideration of the fate of eroded soil – in some regions deposition of eroded soil in river floodplains and<br />

deltas creates areas of very high and enduring fertility.<br />

The effect of soil erosion on individual soil properties related to crop production is well documented, but<br />

the aggregate effect of soil loss on crop yields themselves is less firmly established. The four integrative<br />

studies summarized in Table 7.1 are based on data sources which range from experimental plot data to reinterpretation<br />

of GLASOD data. The range of estimates of annual crop loss due to erosion ranges from 0.1<br />

percent to 0.4 percent, with two studies estimating 0.3 percent yield reduction.<br />

If the median value of 0.3 percent annual crop loss is valid for the period from 2015 to 2050, a total reduction<br />

of 10.25 percent could be projected to 2050 (assuming no other changes such as the adoption of additional<br />

conservation measures by farmers). Foley et al. (2011) cite a value of 1.53 billion ha for cropland globally; the<br />

loss of 10.25 percent of yield due to erosion would be equivalent to the removal of 150 million ha from crop<br />

production or 4.5 million ha per year.<br />

Figure 7.5 Direct impacts of soil threats on specific soil functions of relevance to plant production.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

176


Author Database Used Extent Estimates<br />

den Biggelarr et al.<br />

(2003)<br />

Erosion: 179 plot-level<br />

studies<br />

Crop yield-erosion: 362<br />

Global (37 countries)<br />

Erosion: Average rates<br />

between 12 – 15 t ha -1 yr -1<br />

(0.8 to 1.0 mm per year) 1<br />

Relative annual crop<br />

yield reduction due to<br />

erosion: 0.3 percent per<br />

year (for six major crops)<br />

Bakker, Govers and<br />

Rounsevell (2004)<br />

Erosion-yield: 24<br />

experimental studies<br />

Primarily North America<br />

+ Europe<br />

Yield reductions of<br />

approximately 4 percent<br />

per 10 cm soil loss (=<br />

0.36 percent per year) 1<br />

Scherr (2003)<br />

28 regional studies<br />

and 54 national or<br />

sub-national studies<br />

on soil degradation<br />

(many GLASOD based,<br />

primarily soil erosion)<br />

Global<br />

Productivity losses<br />

since WWII of about<br />

0.3 percent per year for<br />

cropland and 0.1—0.2<br />

percent for pasture.<br />

Crosson (2003)<br />

Re-analysis of GLASOD<br />

and Dregne and Chou<br />

(1992)<br />

Global Cumulative loss of 5<br />

percent of productivity<br />

on 4.7 billion ha<br />

of cropland and<br />

permanent pasture<br />

in 1945 -1 990 period;<br />

average annual rate of<br />

loss of 0.1 percent<br />

Table 7.1 Erosion and crop yield reduction estimates from post-2000 review articles<br />

1 Calculated using average bulk density of 1.5 tonnes m -3 (den Biggelaar et al., 2003) and average erosion rate of 13.5 tonnes ha -1 yr -1<br />

(mid-point of den Biggelaar et al., 2003 range)<br />

The regional differences in crop response to erosion are, however, major. There are great disparities in the<br />

sensitivity of soils to erosion – soils with growth-limiting sub-soil layers (e.g. shallow soils over bedrock, soils<br />

with high sodium and/or dense B horizons) are inherently more susceptible to yield reductions due to soil loss<br />

(Bakker et al., 2007). In a study modelling the impact of erosion in Europe over the next century, Bakker et al.<br />

(2007) predicted yield reductions on the order of 6 to 12 percent in southern Europe and reductions of only 0 to<br />

1 percent in much of northern Europe. The overall impact on European food production is, however, relatively<br />

small as the yields from southern Europe are lower to begin with. In addition, increases in climatic extremes<br />

associated with human-induced climate change may lead to enhanced levels of wind and water erosion, but<br />

the impact of these changes will differ greatly among regions.<br />

Finally, the crop yield/soil erosion relationship may be a less critical reason to reduce soil erosion than<br />

the off-site impacts of erosion, especially the transport of agricultural inputs such as N and P to waterways<br />

(Steffen et al., 2015).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

177


7.2.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> sealing<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> sealing is most commonly associated with the expansion of urban areas and leads to a permanent,<br />

non-reversible loss of agricultural land. Yields are eliminated, not just reduced and the soil, if completely<br />

sealed, becomes effectively non-soil. Urbanization of agricultural land should thus be considered as a threat<br />

to future food production, not only for the loss of good quality agricultural land but also because of the risk<br />

of soil pollution through waste disposal and acid deposition from urban air pollution (Chen, 2007; Hubacek<br />

et al., 2009; Clavero, Villero and Brotons, 2011). Blum and Nortcliff (2013) provide a very rough estimate of<br />

daily losses of soil due to sealing at the global scale of 250-300 km 2 , and suggest this rate could increase due<br />

to continuing migration of rural dwellers to urban areas. Thus, new policies that favour sustainable rural<br />

development, oriented to avoid rural-urban migration as well as to support the return to rural areas of people<br />

living in the cities, could avoid soil degradation and promote food security.<br />

7.2.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> contamination reduces food security both by reducing yields of crops due to toxic levels of contaminants<br />

and by causing the crops that are produced to be unsafe to consume. As summarized in Chapter 6 (Section<br />

6.3), there are worldwide tens of thousands of known contaminated sites due to local or point-source<br />

contamination. In regions with a long-standing industrial base, the expansion of contamination is limited, but<br />

in countries undergoing rapid industrialization or resource development the potential for the further spread<br />

of contamination is great. The tremendous expansion of industry in China is one example of this: 20 million<br />

ha of China’s farmland (approximately one fifth of China’s total farmland) is estimated to be contaminated<br />

by heavy metals, and this may lead to a significant reduction in food availability (see also Section 6.3 above).<br />

Contamination is also severe due to point sources such as Cs pollution from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear<br />

power plant and the Chernobyl disaster of 1983. Diffuse soil contamination occurs in many regions (Blum<br />

and Nortcliff, 2013), but is more commonly linked with concerns about food safety rather than significant<br />

decreases in crop yields.<br />

7.2.4 | Acidification<br />

Acidification of agricultural soils is primarily associated with the net removal of base cations (e.g. product<br />

removal without replacement with ameliorants such as lime) and the direct addition of acidifying inputs (e.g.<br />

ammonium-based N fertilizer) to inherently low-pH soils, which have a low capacity to buffer added acidity. It<br />

is most prevalent on ancient, highly weathered soils. Acidification is a significant regional threat in countries<br />

such as Australia and Vietnam (see Chapters 10 and 15). Liming is an effective response to control acidity of<br />

surface horizons, but rates of lime addition lag behind required levels even in developed countries like Australia<br />

(SOE, 2011) and continuing loss of yield occurs.<br />

7.2.5 | Salinization<br />

Salinization in a soil progressively reduces crop yields; beyond a certain crop-specific threshold, growth of<br />

a given crop may fail entirely. The regional summaries in Chapters 9 to 16 illustrate how difficult it often is to<br />

separate the causes of salinization: whether the saline soils are naturally occurring (primary salinization) or<br />

the salinization has been caused by inappropriate management, which is often the case with poorly executed<br />

irrigation programmes (secondary salinization). Estimates from the 1990s place the land area affected by<br />

primary salinization at approximately one billion ha, and the area of land with secondary salinization at 77<br />

million ha (Ghassemi, Jakeman and Nix, 1995).<br />

Salinization is typically associated with arid and semi-arid areas, and may be exacerbated by climate<br />

change (see also Section 6.5). An increase in irrigated land is commonly suggested as a means to increase<br />

food production, but poorly designed and implemented irrigation schemes can readily cause an increase in<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

178


salinization. Safe design and operation of irrigation systems requires a high level of managerial expertise.<br />

Irrigation expansion can contribute to increases in food production but great care is needed in planning and<br />

design to avoid negative effects such as salinization.<br />

7.2.6 | Compaction<br />

Compaction impairs soil functions by impeding root penetration and limiting water and gas exchange. In<br />

soils where it occurs, it can reduce crop yields but it rarely eliminates plant growth entirely. The susceptibility<br />

of different crops to compaction differs greatly (see also Section 6.9 above). Good soil management requires<br />

care in minimizing soil compaction and the adoption of management practices which alleviate existing<br />

compaction. The effect of soil compaction on output and hence on food security is, however, difficult to<br />

assess, especially in tropical areas (Lal, 2003).<br />

7.2.7 | Nutrient imbalance<br />

The problems associated with under-supply of nutrients in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa will be<br />

discussed in Chapter 8 in the context of closing the yield gap. Foley et al. (2011) and Steffen et al. (2015) clearly<br />

indicates the regions where over-supply of nutrients is occurring: mid-west United States, western Europe,<br />

northern India, and the coastal areas of China. Foley et al. (2011) emphasize the need to address the economic<br />

and environmental issues in nutrient over-supply by increasing the efficiency of nutrient uptake by plants. This,<br />

coupled with reductions in transport of nutrients to waterways by minimizing erosion, would substantially<br />

reduce eutrophication. It would also allow the redistribution of N and P to areas of nutrient-poor soils without<br />

exceeding the planetary boundaries for the elements (Steffen et al., 2015).<br />

7.2.8 | Changes to soil organic carbon and soil biodiversity<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon (SOC) and soil biodiversity are commonly linked to three dimensions of food security:<br />

increases in food availability, restoration of productivity in degraded soils, and the resilience of food production<br />

systems.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> C is not itself a direct control on food production but is a proxy for soil organic matter (SOM), which<br />

is one of the key attributes associated with many soil functions. <strong>Soil</strong> microbial C is normally included in<br />

aggregate measures of SOC, and soil microbes are a component of the soil organic matter; hence in terms<br />

of mass, SOC/SOM and soil microorganisms are directly related. The focus on SOC, rather than SOM, occurs<br />

because of the ease of measurement of C as a proxy for SOM, and because of the direct connection between<br />

SOC and atmospheric C.<br />

The roles of SOC and soil biodiversity in increasing food availability are also inextricably bound together.<br />

Increases in SOC and in soil biodiversity are believed to be beneficial for crop production, and decreases in both<br />

are equally believed to be deleterious for crops; however providing evidence for these qualitative statements<br />

and establishing predictive relationships has been difficult (Naeem et al., 2009; Bommarco, Kleijn and Potts,<br />

2013; Palm et al., 2014).<br />

The more readily understood relationship between soil C storage and atmospheric C levels has driven much<br />

of the work in the past 15 years on soil carbon dynamics, but the secondary benefit of increasing SOC levels<br />

for crop production is commonly cited, if rarely quantified. Efforts to determine a threshold SOC value for<br />

maximum crop production in temperate soils have not been successful as it depends on management and on<br />

other factors such as soil limitations and precipitation (Loveland and Webb, 2003). Lal (2006) estimates yield<br />

gains associated with a 1 Mg ha -1 gain in SOC in the tropics and sub-tropics ranging from 20-70 kg ha -1 yr -1 for<br />

wheat to 30-300 kg ha -1 yr -1 for maize. However, the study acknowledges that the data are meagre and that<br />

functional relationships between SOC pool and crop yield are not available, especially for degraded soils in the<br />

tropics and subtropics.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

179


Research in tropical and semi-tropical lands has established that inputs of organic material through the<br />

return of residues and manure to the soil are essential for fertility restoration in degraded soils, but that low<br />

residue production and competing uses for residues and manure limit the adoption of these SOC-aggrading<br />

approaches (e.g. Lal, 2006; Rusinamhodzi et al., 2013; Palm et al. 2014). Sustainable soil management that<br />

increases SOM levels will assist in maintaining productivity, but the specific measures taken to increase SOM<br />

must be locally developed.<br />

Establishing a direct, quantitative link between soil biodiversity and increasing food production is even more<br />

elusive. Sylvain and Wall (2011) observe that “the total invertebrates found in a soil will interact to provide many<br />

services and participate in several ecosystem functions, but it is unlikely that a single species will influence all<br />

services and functions that influence plant growth or composition at the same time or in the same manner”.<br />

Biodiversity beyond the soil plays an important role in regulating services such as biological pest control and<br />

crop pollination (Bommarco, Kleijn and Potts, 2013), and public concerns about the effects of pesticides on key<br />

species continues to grow.<br />

A final role for SOC enhancement and maintenance of soil biodiversity is to increase the resilience of the soil<br />

for food production, especially its ability to withstand disruption due to human-induced climate change. SOC<br />

buffers the impact of climate extremes on soils and crops by: (i) regulating water supply by reducing runoff<br />

and increasing soil-water holding capacity; (ii) reducing erosion through runoff reductions and improved<br />

aggregation; and (iii) providing sites for nutrient retention and release (Loveland and Webb, 2003; Lal, 2006).<br />

The combined role of soil organic matter and biodiversity in nutrient cycling ensures a continuing supply of<br />

nutrients for crop growth. It is difficult to quantify this relationship, especially in the light of the uncertainties<br />

associated with human-induced climate change, but the existing qualitative understanding is sufficient to<br />

establish the importance of SOC and biodiversity in sustainable soil management.<br />

Summary<br />

The importance of soil degradation and soil rehabilitation are highlighted in principles eight and nine of the<br />

proposed World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter:<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation inherently reduces or eliminates soil functions and their ability to support ecosystem<br />

services essential for human well-being. Minimizing or eliminating significant soil degradation is essential<br />

to maintain the services provided by all soils and is substantially more cost-effective than rehabilitating<br />

soils after degradation has occurred.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s that have experienced degradation can, in some cases, have their core functions and their contributions<br />

to ecosystem services restored through the application of appropriate rehabilitation techniques. This<br />

increases the area available for the provision of services without necessitating land use conversion.<br />

Our ability to predict the effect of soil degradation on food security is very limited for two main reasons. First,<br />

there is a lack of up-to-date knowledge both on the area affected by degradation and on the linkages between<br />

degradation and soil functions (and ultimately plant production). The research community continues to cite<br />

research summaries on the effects of soil degradation on crop yields from the 1990s based on data gathered in<br />

the 1980s. Yet crop production in many regions has undergone profound change since the 1980s – for example,<br />

the widespread adoption of conservation tillage in many regions occurred during the 1990s and 2000s. There<br />

is a pressing need for meta-analyses on all of the soil threats discussed here. This in-depth review of existing<br />

work needs to be complemented by new research to address major information gaps, and in particular to<br />

prove more conclusively the functional relationships between soil attributes and plant production.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

180


The second limitation to predictions is that farmers are not simply passive observers of inexorable<br />

degradation processes – farmers in all regions, including the tropics, are willing to invest in the future to<br />

protect soils and the essential services that they provide (Stocking, 2003). For example, the adoption of<br />

conservation tillage in heavily mechanized systems such as those in North America has substantially lowered<br />

erosion rates (Montgomery, 2007). The general applicability of conservation tillage in other regions may be<br />

limited (Palm et al., 2014) but the principle that farmers are active participants in soil change is essential to<br />

recognize and encourage.<br />

7.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and climate regulation<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s play a fundamental role in the maintenance of a climate favourable to life. A range of soil processes<br />

helps regulate climate, including the thermal and moisture balance, greenhouse gases (H 2<br />

O, CO 2<br />

, CH 4<br />

and<br />

N 2<br />

O) and particulates in the atmosphere. <strong>Soil</strong>s can also adversely impact the maintenance of air quality.<br />

7.3.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> carbon<br />

Although it is hard to estimate quantities, it is certain that soils contain vast reserves of carbon. Recent<br />

estimates range between 1200 and 3000 Pg C depending on the depth to which estimates extend, and on the<br />

way in which wetland soils are counted (Hiederer and Köchy, 2012). Roughly 1670 Pg of C is stored in peatlands<br />

and permafrost soils in high northern latitudes (Tarnocai et al., 2008). Hence soil organic matter is a large<br />

pool. Consequently, only small changes in soil C storage can have a large effect on atmospheric CO 2<br />

. <strong>Soil</strong>s also<br />

contain approx. 950 PgC in the form of pedogenic carbonates to 2 m depth (Batjes, 1996).<br />

Carbon respired from soils and derived from decomposition of organic matter in soils approximately<br />

balances annual net primary production of carbon by biomass. Carbon dioxide derived from plant roots and<br />

their symbionts below ground adds to the total flux of CO 2<br />

from soils to the atmosphere, which in total is ~10<br />

times larger than the current release of CO 2<br />

to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning (Schimel, 1995). Hence<br />

relatively small changes in the cycling of soil C can lead to large changes in atmospheric CO 2<br />

.<br />

Management that changes C inputs or tillage that alters the stability of soil organic matter through changes<br />

in soil aeration or structure measurably alter soil C storage. Historically, the expansion of agriculture has led to<br />

losses of soil C to the atmosphere, estimated globally to be of order 40-90 PgC, some of which has remained<br />

in the atmosphere (Smith, 2004, 2012).<br />

In terms of climate change, most projections suggest soil carbon changes driven by future climate change<br />

will range from small losses to moderate gains, but these global trends show considerable regional variation<br />

(Smith, 2012). The response of soil C in future will be determined by two factors: (i) the impacts of increased<br />

temperature and altered soil moisture on decomposition rates; and (ii) the balance between increases in C<br />

losses resulting from accelerated decomposition and predicted C gains through enhanced productivity under<br />

elevated CO 2<br />

and nutrient deposition (Smith, 2012).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic matter (SOM) is considered dynamic and has importance beyond its climate role. Plant residues<br />

added to soils provide energy for a cascade of heterotrophic organisms. A key outcome of organic matter (OM)<br />

breakdown is the release of essential nutrients into the soil. If the breakdown of OM exceeds the supply of<br />

O 2<br />

, e.g. under high moisture conditions, the degradation of OM using other electron acceptors drives the<br />

production and consumption of other important greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. The<br />

degradation of OM also indirectly affects greenhouse gases like troposphere ozone by altering the emission of<br />

reactive trace gases. In addition to climate effects through regulation of greenhouse gases, SOM determines<br />

properties such as nutrient retention, water retention, and the structure and size of the microbial community<br />

in soils.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

181


SOM feedbacks to climate change (Figure 7.6) include direct responses such as: (i) the alteration of microbial<br />

activity with temperature (Conant et al., 2011); and (ii) moisture-related changes in the supply of O 2<br />

relative to<br />

other electron acceptors that reflect precipitation change. In this context, probably the biggest concern is the<br />

thawing of large stores of C in permafrost at high northern latitudes, which will make organic C that has been<br />

frozen for millennia available for decomposition. This response is predicted to create a significant positive<br />

feedback to climate change (Schuur et al., 2008).<br />

Another direct response of soil organic carbon pools is predicted in response to elevated CO 2<br />

and its effect<br />

on ecosystem productivity. Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment (FACE) studies have shown that belowground<br />

productivity can be strongly affected, with cascading and mixed consequences for SOM storage. However<br />

indirect effects are such as altered stabilization of older C associated with the increased inputs of fresh<br />

plant inputs (‘priming’) add uncertainty to the prediction of future soil C responses. As with CO 2<br />

fertilization,<br />

increased deposition of reactive N associated with regional air pollution affects production, quality and spatial<br />

distribution of plant inputs (e.g. above- versus belowground) and can alter the decomposition rates through<br />

changes in the soil microbial community (Berg and Matzner, 1997). Hence the net effects on soil C storage are<br />

difficult to predict, though the combined effects of climate change and fertilization are expected to result in<br />

net losses of soil C overall from temperate forest soils (Hopkins, Torn and Trumbore, 2012)<br />

Many of the processes affecting SOM over the past century have been dominated by human management<br />

of vegetation, which in turn affects the inputs and status of SOM. Changes in vegetation cover, including<br />

those occurring in response to climate as well as to land use or management, influence soil organic matter by<br />

altering the rates, quality and location of plant litter inputs to soils. In turn, litter inputs influence the amount<br />

and composition of the decomposer organisms, including soil fauna, as well as the soil microbial community.<br />

Studies of a number of vegetation transitions – for example the replacement of forests with agriculture or<br />

pasture – have shown that these transitions have led to a loss of soil C to the atmosphere. However, the<br />

trajectory of vegetation change in response to climate, and the consequences for atmospheric CO 2<br />

, are not<br />

well known, as soils will in turn determine what kind of vegetation will take over. For example, C from thawing<br />

permafrost soils may eventually be sequestered in the biomass of forests that can grow in the warmer climate.<br />

Evidently the time lags required for these transitions are an important part of understanding the net effect of<br />

soil C on the carbon cycle.<br />

In addition to direct effects of changes in plant litter addition to soils, management or vegetation change<br />

also alters the chemical and physical framework of soil and thereby the organisms inhabiting it. For example,<br />

ploughing can break up soil aggregates and make organic matter that was previously protected available<br />

to decomposers. Changes in evapotranspiration can change local and regional water resources. Addition of<br />

fertilizers increases plant productivity but also alters soil microbial communities and can stimulate production<br />

of reactive N gases and N 2<br />

O.<br />

Large-scale soil erosion is thought to slow decomposition of buried, eroded organic matter, while growth of<br />

vegetation on the remaining soil will tend to increase soil C storage. However, these effects have been shown<br />

to be relatively small (Van Oost et al., 2007). By removing topsoil that is generally high in organic matter,<br />

erosion can have profound effects on physical and chemical soil properties such as water retention and cation<br />

exchange capacity.<br />

Global increases in carbon stocks have a large, cost-competitive potential for climate change mitigation<br />

(Smith et al., 2008). Mechanisms include reduced soil disturbance, improved rotations and residue/organic<br />

input management, and restoration of degraded soils. Nevertheless, limitations on soil C sequestration<br />

include time limitation, non-permanence, displacement and difficulties in verification (Smith, 2012). Despite<br />

these limitations, soil C sequestration can be useful to meet short- to medium-term targets. In addition, soil C<br />

sequestration confers a number of co-benefits on soils. It is thus a viable option for reducing the atmospheric<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

182


Figure 7.6 Some soil-related feedbacks to global climate change to illustrate the complexity and potential number of response<br />

pathways. Source: Heimann and Reichstein, 2008.<br />

CO 2<br />

concentration in the shorter term, buying time to develop longer term emission reduction solutions<br />

across all sectors of the global economy (Smith, 2012).<br />

Just as reductions in soil C stocks are associated with negative consequences for soil function, increased<br />

soil carbon stocks are associated with increased soil fertility, workability, water holding capacity, reductions in<br />

greenhouse gas emissions and reduced erosion risk (Lal, 2004). Increasing soil carbon stocks can thus reduce<br />

the vulnerability of managed soils to future global warming (Smith and Olesen, 2010). Management practices<br />

effective in increasing SOC stocks include: (i) improved plant productivity through nutrient management,<br />

rotations and improved farming practices; (ii) reduced or conservation tillage and residue management; (iii)<br />

more effective use of organic amendments; (iv) land use change, for example from crops to grass or trees; (v)<br />

set-aside; (vi) agroforestry; (vii) optimizing livestock densities; and (viii) planting legumes or improving the<br />

crop mix (Smith et al., 2008). While these measures have the technical potential to increase SOC stocks by<br />

about 1 – 1.3 Pg C yr -1 (Smith et al., 2007a, 2008), they are dependent on economics: the economic potential for<br />

SOC sequestration was estimated to be 0.4, 0.6 and 0.7 Pg C yr -1 at carbon prices of up to US$20, $50 and $100<br />

per tonnes CO 2<br />

-eq. yr–1, respectively (Smith et al., 2008). In addition, the size of the potential sequestration<br />

is relatively small in comparison to the threats: only a small loss of C from permafrost or peatlands could<br />

offset this potential sequestration (Joosten et al., 2014). However, an increase in SOC through improved<br />

management is expected to also reduce vulnerability of the soils to future SOC loss under global warming.<br />

As such, soil carbon sequestration can, in many respects, be regarded as a ‘win-win’ and a ‘no regrets’ option<br />

(Smith et al., 2007b).<br />

7.3.2 | Nitrous oxide emissions<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s emit nitrous oxide (N 2<br />

O), a greenhouse gas that is around 300 times more potent for radiative forcing<br />

(climate warming) over 100 years than CO 2<br />

. Of the approximately 16 Tg N 2<br />

O-N yr–1 emitted globally in the<br />

1990s, between 40 and 50 percent was a result of human activities (Reay et al., 2012). The main sources were<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

183


agriculture, industry, biomass burning and indirect emissions from reactive nitrogen, such as leaching, runoff<br />

and atmospheric deposition (Reay et al., 2012). Of these sources, agricultural soils are the dominant source,<br />

contributing over 80 percent of global anthropogenic N 2<br />

O emissions during the 1990s (Smith et al., 2007a).<br />

N 2<br />

O emissions from agricultural soils have increased from just under 4 Tg N 2<br />

O-N yr–1 in 1990, to over 4 Tg<br />

N 2<br />

O-N yr–1 in 2010. Emissions are projected to increase to over 5 Tg N 2<br />

O-N yr–1 by 2030 (Reay et al., 2012).<br />

Nitrous oxide is emitted from soils through two processes, nitrification and denitrification. Any mineral<br />

N available in the soil is subject to loss through one of these processes. The processes depend on soil<br />

environmental conditions such as the availability of mineral N, soil temperature and soil water content,<br />

soil pH, organic matter content and soil type. Nitrification tends to be favoured under aerobic conditions<br />

and denitrification under anaerobic conditions (Galloway et al., 2003). Subject to mineral N being available,<br />

any soil can emit N 2<br />

O through mineralisation of soil organic matter. However, the majority of emissions are<br />

driven by sources of N added to the soil as fertiliser, either as synthetic fertilizer, or as organic amendments<br />

(e.g. manures, slurries, composts). So close is the relationship between N addition and emission, that N 2<br />

O<br />

emissions are often calculated as a direct function of N added to the soil (Reay et al., 2012). Emissions of N 2<br />

O<br />

from agricultural soils driven by addition of synthetic fertilizers have increased from 67 MtCO 2<br />

-eq. yr -1 in 1961,<br />

to 683 MtCO 2<br />

-eq. yr -1 in 2010 (Tubiello et al., 2013).<br />

Given the close association between N inputs and N 2<br />

O emissions, soil management strategies to reduce<br />

N 2<br />

O emissions, and thereby improve this aspect of their climate regulation function, are mostly centred on<br />

removing surplus N in the soil. This is mainly accomplished by improving N-use efficiency to reduce the N<br />

surplus, either by reducing inputs or by better matching applications (timing and amount) to plant demand<br />

(Snyder et al., 2014). In a recent review, Snyder et al. (2014) noted that soil N 2<br />

O emissions can be reduced by<br />

selecting the right source, rate, time and place of N application and that new technologies and greater farmer/<br />

adviser skills can improve N input management. They estimate that crop N recovery could be increased by >20<br />

percent, reducing risks of N 2<br />

O emissions by >20–30 percent (Snyder et al., 2014).<br />

Beyond these technical measures, N 2<br />

O emissions could also be reduced through demand-side management,<br />

for example through reduced food waste. Another demand-side measure could be to encourage dietary<br />

change away from less efficiently produced food products such as meat and other livestock products, or foods<br />

with very high energy inputs, such as heated glasshouses during winter (Reay et al., 2012).<br />

In summary, managed soils can play a key role in climate regulation via N 2<br />

O emissions, and a number of<br />

options exist to improve the soil’s delivery of its climate regulation service both by enhanced N management<br />

and by wider systemic changes in agriculture (Flynn and Smith, 2010; Reay et al., 2012; Snyder et al., 2014).<br />

7.3.3 | Methane emissions<br />

Methane (CH 4<br />

) is a greenhouse gas that is around 20–35 times more potent for radiative forcing (climate<br />

warming) over 100 years than CO 2<br />

. <strong>Soil</strong>s often emit methane through methanogenesis when decomposition<br />

of organic matter occurs in anaerobic soil layers. Methane is also oxidised by methanotrophy in aerobic<br />

layers, so the emission is a balance between methanogenesis and methanotrophy (Le Mer and Roger, 2001).<br />

About 30 percent of total global CH 4<br />

emissions are natural (including the natural wetland flux), and around<br />

70 percent anthropogenic (Le Mer and Roger, 2001). Given that methanogenesis occurs under anaerobic<br />

conditions, waterlogged soils, particularly wetlands, peatlands and rice paddies, are the largest source of<br />

methane emissions (Le Mer and Roger, 2001). Since much of the methane flux from wetland and peatland<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

184


soils occurs on largely unmanaged areas, the emissions are not considered anthropogenic, so are not routinely<br />

included in greenhouse gas inventories. This means that the quantification of soil methane emissions over<br />

time from peatlands and wetlands is not as well documented as for N 2<br />

O. Nonetheless, some global estimates<br />

of CH 4<br />

emissions from wetlands do exist: in 1998, total global emissions of CH 4<br />

from wetlands were estimated<br />

to be 145 Tg yr -1 , of which 92 Tg yr -1 came from natural wetlands and 53 Tg yr -1 from rice paddies (Cao, Gregson<br />

and Marshall, 1998), with some estimates a little higher (Le Mer and Roger, 2001). Emissions from rice paddies,<br />

however, are included in inventories: CH 4<br />

emissions from rice paddies were estimated to have increased from<br />

366 MtCO 2<br />

-eq. yr -1 in 1961 to 499 MtCO 2<br />

-eq. yr -1 in 2010 (Tubiello et al., 2013).<br />

By contrast, aerobic soils tend to act as sinks for CH 4<br />

, thereby having a positive impact on climate regulation.<br />

Temperate and tropical aerobic soils that are exposed to atmospheric concentrations of CH 4<br />

usually exhibit<br />

low levels of atmospheric CH 4<br />

oxidation but, since they cover large areas, they are estimated to consume ~10<br />

percent of the atmospheric CH 4<br />

(Le Mer and Roger, 2001). Forest soils are the strongest CH 4<br />

sink, followed by<br />

grasslands, with the sink capacity of cultivated land much lower than that of undisturbed soils (Steudler et al.,<br />

1996; Priemé et al., 1997). Atmospheric CH 4<br />

oxidation also occurs in extreme environments such as deserts and<br />

glaciers, in the floodwater of submerged soils and in river waters (Le Mer and Roger, 2001). Potter, Davidson<br />

and Verchot (1996) estimated global soil CH 4<br />

consumption to be 17–23 Tg yr−1.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> management strategies to reduce CH 4<br />

emissions or enhance CH 4<br />

uptake can improve this aspect of the<br />

soil’s climate regulation function. Enhancing uptake in managed soils is difficult, so most mitigation options<br />

occur for CH 4<br />

emission reduction, and since wetlands or often unmanaged, most mitigation options have been<br />

developed for rice paddies. These include draining the wetland rice once or several times during the growing<br />

season, selection of rice cultivars with low exudation rates, off-rice season water management, fertilizer<br />

management and the timing and composting of organic residue additions (Smith et al., 2008). For managed<br />

peatlands and wetlands (e.g. those used for forestry or agriculture), methane emissions can be reduced<br />

by fertilizer, water and tillage management (Le Mer and Roger, 2001). Rewetting of drained or cultivated<br />

peatlands to restore wetland function and maintain carbon stocks is likely to increase CH 4<br />

emissions, but the<br />

overall impact on climate will vary between systems and depending on the time horizon considered (Joosten<br />

et al., 2014).<br />

7.3.4 | Heat and moisture transfer<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s play an essential role in storage of water. <strong>Soil</strong> moisture strongly affects water, energy and carbon<br />

exchanges, leading to major forcings and feedbacks within the climate system (Seneviratne et al., 2010). <strong>Soil</strong><br />

moisture generally refers to the amount of water stored in the unsaturated soil zone. The most important<br />

soil moisture storage is that affecting plant transpiration, e.g. the water available within the root zone. Land<br />

evapotranspiration is an essential component of the continental water cycle, since it returns as much as 60<br />

percent of precipitated land water back to the atmosphere (e.g. Dirmeyer et al., 2006; Oki and Kanae, 2006;<br />

van der Ent et al., 2010). <strong>Soil</strong> moisture is the main water source for this process, through plant transpiration<br />

and bare soil evaporation. Plant transpiration contributes about 60 percent of all land evapotranspiration<br />

(Schlesinger and Jasechko, 2014).<br />

Evapotranspiration is itself a function of soil moisture (Koster et al., 2004; Seneviratne et al., 2010). This<br />

dependency is conceptually illustrated in Figure 7.7, which builds upon the classical Budyko framework (Budyko,<br />

1956, 1974). It shows that three main soil moisture regimes can be distinguished: (i) a wet soil moisture regime<br />

in which evapotranspiration is solely limited by the availability of energy; (ii) a transitional soil moisture regime<br />

in which evapotranspiration is strongly sensitive to the availability of soil moisture; and (iii) a dry soil moisture<br />

regime in which soil moisture is at or below the wilting point and for which evapotranspiration is negligible.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

185


The geographical distribution of these soil moisture and evapotranspiration regimes can be estimated<br />

with various methods, as discussed in Seneviratne et al. (2010). As an illustration, Figure 7.8 displays the<br />

correlation of annual mean evapotranspiration with radiation and precipitation in an observation-driven<br />

land surface model using a two-dimensional colour map. This analysis illustrates the existence of distinct<br />

evapotranspiration regimes, with most regions clearly displaying either the characteristics of a soil moistureor<br />

energy-limited evapotranspiration regime.<br />

One should note that the relationship displayed in Figure 7.7 is qualitative, and is affected (both in space and<br />

time) by variations in soil parameters, land cover characteristics, and other factors (e.g. Teuling et al., 2010;<br />

Koster and Mahanama, 2012; Guillod et al., 2013).<br />

The water and energy balances of land are tightly connected through the process of evapotranspiration. It<br />

follows that the soil moisture effects on evapotranspiration (illustrated in Figure 7.8) are also highly relevant<br />

for land energy exchanges at the land surface. This link makes soil moisture a strong control of temperature<br />

variability and temperature extremes on land (e.g. Seneviratne et al., 2006; Fischer et al., 2007; Vautard et<br />

al., 2007; Mueller and Seneviratne, 2012). Modelling estimates suggest that soil moisture feedbacks affect<br />

about 60 percent of temperature variability in the present Mediterranean climate in summer (Seneviratne et<br />

al., 2006) and that they induced additional temperature anomalies of the order of 2°C in Central Europe during<br />

the 2003 European summer heat wave (Fischer et al., 2007). Observation-based analyses also confirm the<br />

existence of strong correlations between the occurrence of hot extremes in regional hottest months and prior<br />

precipitation deficits in regions with soil moisture-limited evapotranspiration regimes (Hirschi et al., 2011;<br />

Quesada et al., 2012; Mueller and Seneviratne, 2012). The example of the European summer heat wave shows,<br />

moreover, that these feedbacks can be relevant in extreme years even in regions like Central Europe which<br />

have a dominant energy-limited evapotranspiration regime under the present climate.<br />

For present climate conditions, the relationship between soil moisture deficits and hot extremes implies<br />

that information on soil moisture deficits could be used for improved forecasting of temperature mean and<br />

Dry<br />

Transitional<br />

Wet<br />

EF max<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Limited Energy limited<br />

EF=λE/R n<br />

0<br />

θ WILT<br />

θ CRIT<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> moisture content<br />

Figure 7.7 Definition of soil moisture regimes and corresponding evapotranspiration regimes. Source: Seneviratne et al., 2010.<br />

EF denotes the evaporative fraction, and EFmax its maximal value.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

186


extremes several weeks in advance (e.g. Koster et al., 2010a; Mueller and Seneviratne, 2010). Such early soil<br />

moisture information can be either provided by an offline land surface model driven with observation-based<br />

forcing (e.g. Dirmeyer et al., 2006), by remote sensing products (e.g. Wagner et al., 2007; De Jeu et al., 2008),<br />

or by the assimilation of remote sensing products in land surface models (e.g. Reichle, 2008). However, the<br />

scarcity of precipitation and soil moisture observations still limits the derivation of reliable soil moisture<br />

estimates and the evaluation of satellite approaches on most continents (e.g. Koster et al., 2010b; Dorigo et<br />

al., 2013).<br />

Figure 7.8 Estimation of evapotranspiration drivers (moisture and radiation) based on observation-driven land surface model<br />

simulation. Source: Seneviratne et al., 2010.<br />

The figure displays yearly correlations of evapotranspiration with global radiation Rg and precipitation P in simulations from the 2nd<br />

phase of the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Wetness Project (GSWP, Dirmeyer et al., 2006) using a two-dimensional color map, based on Teuling et al.<br />

2009, redrawn for the whole globe. (Seneviratne et al., 2010)<br />

Climate models project that several regions will be affected by more frequent drought conditions in the<br />

future as a consequence of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations (e.g. Wang, 2005; Sheffield and Wood,<br />

2007; Seneviratne et al., 2012). This implies shifts in climate and soil moisture regimes, with important impacts<br />

on temperature projections (e.g. Seneviratne et al., 2006; Dirmeyer et al., 2012), in particular for temperature<br />

extremes (Seneviratne et al., 2013).<br />

Another feedback of soil moisture on climate is the possible impact of droughts on plant carbon uptake<br />

and a resulting decreased sink for CO 2<br />

emissions (Ciais et al., 2005; Friedlingstein et al., 2006; Sitch et al.,<br />

2008; Reichstein et al., 2013). One particularly important region for this feedback is the Amazon rainforest,<br />

which is projected in some models to dry substantially (e.g. Mahli et al., 2008). However, these projections<br />

are associated with high uncertainty in current climate models (Orlowsky and Seneviratne, 2013), and the<br />

resulting effects on carbon uptake could also be affected by the representation of plant physiology in the land<br />

surface schemes (Huntingford et al., 2012).<br />

Finally, the combined effects of soil moisture on near-surface humidity and temperature are also relevant<br />

for boundary layer development and precipitation occurrence (e.g. Betts, 2004; Koster et al., 2004; Taylor et<br />

al., 2012). More details on these feedbacks are provided in Sections 7.5 and 7.6 below.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

187


7.4 | Air quality regulation<br />

According to the World Health Organisation (http://www.who.int/topics/air_pollution/en/), air pollution<br />

is “contamination of the indoor or outdoor environment by any chemical, physical or biological agent that<br />

modifies the natural characteristics of the atmosphere”. The status of air pollution is often referred to as air<br />

quality (Monks et al., 2009). Air quality affects human health through exposure to toxic inorganic compounds<br />

(e.g. HBr, elemental Hg vapour), toxic organic compounds (e.g. organic pesticides), and particulate matter<br />

(PM). Air quality also affects the climate system through changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (CO 2<br />

, CH 4<br />

,<br />

N 2<br />

O) – as discussed in Section 7.3 − and through aerosols (e.g. mineral particles, black carbon or ‘BC’). After<br />

deposition of atmospheric pollutants (e.g. N and S compounds, or compounds containing trace elements) on<br />

land or water, acidification, eutrophication, and contamination might occur (see Section 4.4), which can have<br />

harmful effects on ecosystem function and structure, particularly where deposition exceeds the ‘critical load’<br />

that a particular soil can buffer (Nilsson and Grennfelt, 1988). Specific compounds in the atmosphere, such as<br />

ammonia (NH 3<br />

), can result in a host of environmental problems (e.g. impacts on human health, odour, climate<br />

change, soil acidification, eutrophication, biodiversity). The magnitude of the problems would depend on<br />

interactions with other compounds (Aneja, Schlesinger and Erisman, 2009).<br />

7.4.2 | Ammonia emissions<br />

Agriculture accounts for 80–99 percent of all NH 3<br />

emissions (FAO, 2014). In Europe, agriculture accounts<br />

for 94 percent (EEA, 2012). These emissions mainly come from animal manure and fertiliser application (Olivier<br />

et al., 1998). In the United States, NH 3<br />

reductions are voluntary and there are neither federal nor national<br />

regulations controlling its emission (Aneja, Schlesinger and Erisman, 2009; Greaver et al., 2012). In Europe,<br />

however, NH 3<br />

emissions have been an important policy issue (van der Hoek, 1998) and regulation has led<br />

to an overall reduction in NH 3<br />

emissions. Between 1990 and 2010, NH 3<br />

emissions decreased in the EU-27 by<br />

28 percent (EEA, 2012), with especially large reductions in Poland, the Netherlands and Germany. Ammonia<br />

emission reductions have been associated with a reduction in the number of livestock (especially cattle),<br />

improvement of manure management, and the lower input of nitrogenous fertilisers to soils (EEA, 2011, 2012).<br />

The effectiveness of manure injection to decrease emissions is under debate, as a result of its effect on pollutant<br />

swapping, as there may be a reduction in NH 3<br />

but an increase in N 2<br />

O emissions and/or NO 3<br />

leaching (Erisman<br />

et al., 2008). A better understanding is needed on the contribution of NH 3<br />

as a precursor of PM concentrations,<br />

both emissions of primary PM 10 (particulate matter with a size < 10 µm) and secondary formation of PM 2.5<br />

(particulate matter with a size < 2.5 µm) (Aneja, Schlesinger and Erisman, 2009). It is worth mentioning that<br />

interactions occur with other compounds in the atmosphere, to the extent that reductions in SO 2<br />

and NOx<br />

are only effective in the reduction of PM 2.5 if carried out simultaneously with NH 3<br />

reductions (Erisman and<br />

Schaap, 2004).<br />

7.4.3 | Aerosols<br />

Mineral dust, sulphate aerosols, and organic C and black C (BC) aerosols from fossil fuel and biomass burning<br />

have a significant effect on radiative forcing (Forster et al., 2007). Mineral dust is mainly emitted from deep<br />

and extensive alluvial flood deposits emplaced during the Pleistocene, for example in the Sahara, East Asia, the<br />

Arabian deserts, and Central Australia (Prospero et al., 2002). The largest sources are located in the Northern<br />

Hemisphere, in the so-called ‘global dust belt’ that extends from the west coast of North Africa, through the<br />

Middle East, into Central Asia. Outside this belt, areas with remarkable persistent dust activity include the<br />

Great Basin in south-western North America, the Lake Eyre Basinin Australia, some areas of South America<br />

(predominantly in Argentina), and southern Africa (Prospero et al., 2002) (Figure 6.2). The ‘Red Dawn’ dust<br />

storm that affected Sydney, Australia in September 2009 is described in Chapter 15. Mineral dust originating<br />

in the Sahel has been reported to be regularly carried over large areas of the Atlantic and the Caribbean; the<br />

largest export occurs during years of low rainfall in the source region (Prospero and Lamb, 2003). Although this<br />

process might have been exacerbated by anthropogenic activities (Prospero and Nees, 1978), recent evidence<br />

indicates that vegetation cover in the region has not changed substantially in the past 20 years and that, on a<br />

global scale, dust mobilisation is probably mostly driven by natural events (Prospero et al., 2002).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

188


The direct effect of aerosols on the climatic system is mainly through the reflection and absorption of solar<br />

radiation (Miller and Tegen, 1998). The indirect effect involves the modification of cloud properties (Kaufman,<br />

Tanre and Boucher, 2002). Greenhouse gases, in contrast, reduce the outgoing thermal radiation to space.<br />

Differences in lifetime and spatial distribution between greenhouse gases and aerosols are also considerable:<br />

greenhouse gases have a lifetime of more than 100 years and a homogeneous distribution (Forster et al., 2007),<br />

whereas aerosols have a lifetime of about a week and a rather heterogeneous distribution (Andreae et al.,<br />

1986). <strong>Soil</strong> dust aerosols have also been reported to modify the lifetime of some greenhouse gases (Dentener<br />

et al., 1996). They also provide essential nutrients to ocean ecosystems that may increase the efficiency of the<br />

ocean’s biological pump and help sequester CO 2<br />

in the deep ocean (Martin, 1990). This is specially the case of<br />

iron, which is an important micronutrient for phytoplankton (Falkowski, Barber and Smetacek, 1998).<br />

Most aerosols are highly reflective, thus raising the albedo of our planet and having a cooling effect.<br />

However, aerosols containing BC are dark and strongly absorb the incoming sunlight (Kaufman, Tanre and<br />

Boucher, 2002). This warms the atmosphere and cools the Earth’s surface before a redistribution of the energy<br />

occurs in the atmosphere column (Ramanathan and Carmichael, 2008). Black C alters the radiative forcing<br />

through different processes: (i) the presence of BC in the atmosphere above surfaces with high albedo such<br />

as snow or clouds may cause a significant positive radiative forcing (Ramaswamy et al., 2001); (ii) BC aerosols<br />

deposited on snow may promote melting (Warren and Wiscombe, 1980; Hansen and Nazarenko, 2004);<br />

and (iii) BC influences evaporation and cloud formation by modifying the atmosphere’s vertical temperature<br />

gradient (Ackerman et al., 2000; Raufman and Fraser, 1997). However, the exact radiative forcing depends on<br />

how BC is mixed with other aerosol constituents (Jacobson, 2001).<br />

Carbonaceous aerosol emission inventories suggest that approximately 34-38 percent of these emissions<br />

come from biomass burning sources, the remainder from fossil fuel burning sources (Forster et al., 2007).<br />

Fossil-fuel-dominated BC emissions are approximately 100 percent more efficient warming agents than<br />

biomass-burning-dominated plumes (Ramana et al., 2010). The type of smoke is also largely influenced by<br />

the type of biomass being burned (Takemura et al., 2002). In savannah ecosystems, about 85 percent of the<br />

biomass (mostly grasses) is consumed by flaming during fire events. In forest fires this value decreases to 50<br />

percent or less, as the flaming stage is followed by a long, cooler smouldering stage in which the thicker wood,<br />

not completely consumed, emits smoke composed of organic particles without BC (Takemura et al., 2002).<br />

Black C is thus mostly emitted during the hot, flaming stage of the fire (Kaufman et al., 2002). The intense<br />

surface heating caused by fires can further cause a rapid uplift of heated air, known as pyro-convection, which<br />

can considerably disturb the chemical conditions in the free and upper troposphere and, in some cases, in the<br />

stratosphere (Monks et al., 2009). Aerosols from fires are more likely to be injected at higher altitudes and are<br />

likely to experience long-range transport. Aerosol emissions from large boreal fires in Alaska and Russia have<br />

been shown to be transported very efficiently over long distances (Damoah et al., 2006; Petzold et al., 2007).<br />

7.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and water quality regulation<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s provide a biogeochemically activated filtration and cleaning service that transforms or retains materials<br />

deposited at the land surface. These materials include not only nitrogen and phosphorous, elements from grey<br />

water used for irrigation, and acidic compounds, but also inorganic and organic toxins. If the capacity of the<br />

soil to retain, transform or filter these materials is exceeded, there can be severe environmental consequences<br />

for water quality. <strong>Soil</strong>s also adversely impact the provision of clean water through erosion into water courses,<br />

through salinization and through redox cycling and the release of metals such as arsenic.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

189


7.5.1 | Nitrogen and phosphorous retention and transformation<br />

By increasing fertilizer production and crop N fixation, human activities have doubled nitrogen (N) fixation<br />

from the atmosphere during the last century. Half (210 Tg N yr -1 ) of global nitrogen fixation (413 Tg N yr -1 ) is<br />

human-driven (Fowler et al., 2013). Mining and erosion have increased the phosphorus (P) flow from land into<br />

the ocean by at least ten-fold (preindustrial value of 1 to current estimate of 9-32 Tg P yr -1 ; Carpenter and Bennett,<br />

2011). A recent inventory indicates that approximately 60 percent of the nitrogen fixed by human activities is<br />

released back into the environment without being incorporated into food or products (Houlton et al., 2013).<br />

Increases in the release of reactive nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) to the environment are associated with<br />

many significant environmental concerns, including surface water contamination, harmful algal blooms,<br />

hypoxia, air pollution, nitrogen saturation in forests, drinking water contamination, stratospheric ozone<br />

depletion and climate change (Bennett, Carpenter and Caraco, 2001; Sutton et al., 2011; Davidson et al., 2012).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s serve as an important regulator of the leakage of this anthropogenic N and P back into the air or to<br />

surface and ground water, since much of the release occurs from fertilizers or atmospheric deposition. <strong>Soil</strong> is<br />

the largest pool of N and P within terrestrial ecosystems (Cole and Rapp, 1981), illustrating the magnitude and<br />

stability of soil N and P storage. Review of 15N tracer studies reinforces that idea that soils are the strongest<br />

sink for nitrogen in the short and medium term (Fenn et al., 1998; Templer et al., 2012). Flows of N through<br />

the landscape and the consequences of excess N can be represented by the N cascade (Galloway et al., 2003).<br />

Nitrogen and phosphorus removal occurs through plant or microbial uptake, storage in soil organic matter,<br />

by complexation, and sorption or exchange. Nitrogen is cycled biologically through plant uptake, litterfall and<br />

microbial cycling, and is stored in organic forms except in areas with substantial rock-derived N (Morford,<br />

Houlton and Dahlgren, 2011). By contrast, soil P is mainly found in an inorganic form, sorbed or complexed by<br />

soil minerals and the exchanger. Organic P is a smaller pool in most soils, found in a review of global soil P to<br />

range from 5-40 percent (Yang and Post, 2011). For N, there are also significant gaseous losses via NOx or NH 3<br />

and through denitrification as N 2<br />

or N 2<br />

O. Storage in soils or perennial plants and conversion into other inert<br />

forms (N 2<br />

for N or stable inorganic complexes for P) represent stable sinks that remove N and P from flowpaths<br />

and the N cascade for a period of time determined by the residence time of those sinks.<br />

An important service provided by soils is to remove N and P along flowpaths, preventing mobile nitrate<br />

and phosphate from moving from terrestrial ecosystems into surface waters and groundwater. Global models<br />

indicate that soils are responsible for the largest portion of landscape N removal - 22 percent of global N removal<br />

as denitrification - second only to coastal ocean sediments (Seitzinger et al., 2006). Riparian soils or wetlands<br />

can remove N that has leaked from forests, farms, rangelands or the built environment (Peterjohn and Correll,<br />

1984), as long as riparian zones are downgradient of the N source (Weller and Baker, 2014). One study indicates<br />

that replacement of 10 percent of historical riparian buffers could substantially reduce N loading to the Gulf of<br />

Mexico (Mitsch et al., 2001).<br />

Phosphorus cycling has important distinctions from N cycling. In particular, the dominant inorganic form<br />

of phosphorus, orthophosphate, binds strongly to soil particles via sorption or complexation as inorganic P, in<br />

contrast to nitrate, which is quite mobile. Phosphorus can be displaced under reducing conditions, and thus<br />

efforts to target N removal may in fact cause unanticipated increases in dissolved P concentrations (Ardón<br />

et al., 2010). While we do not have a parallel conceptual P cascade, P availability can drive the formation<br />

of harmful algal blooms, and recent work indicates that joint management of N and P is critical (Conley et<br />

al., 2009). In efforts to reduce effects on ecosystems and water quality, it is important to consider the soil<br />

processes involved in removal of both elements and their interactions.<br />

Perturbations that increase the mobility of N and P may saturate the retention capacity of soils such that the<br />

ability to remove these elements declines as inputs increase. Disturbances that affect soil structure, rooting<br />

patterns and organic matter also decrease N and P retention capacity. At the ecosystem scale, N removal<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

190


capacity declines as N loads increase above a point where N can be taken up by plants and soil processes<br />

(Aber et al., 1989). While studies illustrate that the rate of N removal does generally decline with increasing N<br />

inputs (e.g. Perakis, Compton and Hedin, 2005), there are still questions about the ability of soils to retain N<br />

over time. The saturation point may vary by ecosystem and soil type. For example, wetland ecosystems have<br />

a tremendous capacity to retain N – a recent meta-analysis indicates that wetland N removal is linear with N<br />

loading, removing about 47 percent of N inputs even at very high loads (Jordan, Stoffer and Nestlerode, 2011).<br />

However, recent work on agricultural soils found that N 2<br />

O production increases with increased N loading<br />

(Shcherbak, Millar and Robertson, 2014). This reinforces the pattern of decline in capacity of soils to serve as a<br />

stable N sink under high N inputs, and suggests that efforts to reduce N 2<br />

O production should target areas of<br />

high N loads where larger benefits will be seen per unit N.<br />

The connection between ecosystem services and soil processes is sometimes distant. The benefit of N<br />

uptake in a riparian soil in Iowa might be most appreciated in distant coastal fisheries. In addition, ecosystem<br />

services do not turn on or off with the flick of a switch; for example, it may take decades to recover water<br />

quality after a widespread land use change (Hart, 2003; Howden et al., 2010). Our perspectives about soils and<br />

ecosystem services should include these distant connections and time lags.<br />

Removal of N from the cascade has implications for many aspects of human health and well-being (Figure 1;<br />

Brauman et al., 2007; Compton et al., 2011), and an increasing number of studies are including soil processes in<br />

ecosystem service assessments and valuation frameworks (De Groot, Wilson and Boumans, 2002; Robinson<br />

et al., 2013). <strong>Soil</strong> N and P removal is generally seen as an intermediate service or a supporting or regulating<br />

service in current ecosystem services classification schemes, as it affects a number of final ecosystem goods<br />

and services (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007).<br />

Impacts of nitrogen on ecosystem services (ES), on the economy and on human well-being have been<br />

examined in a number of studies (Birch et al., 2010; Compton et al., 2011; van Grinsven et al., 2013). <strong>Soil</strong> N and<br />

P storage could have implications for many benefits, including the following: (i) avoidance of consequences<br />

to ecosystem services provided by freshwater, groundwater and coastal waters from reduced quality for<br />

swimming, drinking, recreation or fishing; (ii) avoidance of air quality problems associated with N such as those<br />

affecting human respiratory health or visibility (NOx, NHy); (iii) avoidance of damage from climate change and<br />

stratospheric ozone depletion (N 2<br />

O); and (iv) maintenance of soil fertility and ecosystem production (both N<br />

and P). Eutrophication of coastal areas and associated hypoxia can result in physiological and behavioural<br />

impacts on important coastal organisms, populations and ecosystems that result in lowered fitness and<br />

productivity. However, there is a good deal of uncertainty about the economic damages associated with<br />

coastal eutrophication in many areas (Rabotyagov et al., 2014). Efforts to inform policy should bring together<br />

ecologists and economists to study the impacts of N and P on ecosystem services all along the cascade.<br />

7.5.2 | Acidification buffering<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidity is controlled by both biota (plant roots and microorganisms) and particles (soil minerals and<br />

organic matter). Production of carbon dioxide, organic matter decomposition, and the excretion of acidic<br />

compounds by biota increase soil acidity, while binding of acidic compounds to root and particle surfaces,<br />

as well as mineral weathering, decrease it (Sposito, 2008). Over periods ranging from centuries to millennia,<br />

while most of the less resistant minerals become depleted through weathering reactions with rainwater and<br />

subsequent leaching, highly acidic soils are produced naturally. They now occupy about one-third of the icefree<br />

land area on Earth (Guo et al., 2010), mainly in the humid tropics and in the forested regions of temperate<br />

zones.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

191


Industrial effluents (for example, sulphur and nitrogen oxide gases dissolved in atmospheric precipitation<br />

or transformed to particles, or acidic wastewaters) and nitrogenous fertilizers, such as urea, are typical<br />

anthropogenic inputs of acidity to soils. If these two acidic inputs exceed about 15 percent of the capacity of<br />

soil to neutralize them, acidification increases markedly, with a variety of serious problems arising for both<br />

plant and microbial growth. The potential for generating polluted runoff or drainage water also increases<br />

markedly. Over a 20 year period Guo et al. (2010) documented such increases of acidity in Chinese topsoils,<br />

caused by nitrogen fertilization and acidic deposition. The topsoils investigated showed an average pH<br />

decrease of 0.50, which is quite serious. Other long-term studies document decadal changes in soil acidity<br />

that are even larger (Richter and Markewitz, 2001). Acidic deposition is an important problem in China, but<br />

the acidification caused by nitrogen fertilization was found to be 10 to 100 times greater than that caused by<br />

acid rain. In the principal double-cropping cereal systems of China (wheat-maize, rice-wheat, and rice-rice),<br />

nitrogen fertilizer use efficiencies are only 30 to 50 percent. The progressive acidification of topsoil – as well<br />

as nitrogen pollution of agricultural runoff and drainage – will remain unchecked as long as this low nitrogen<br />

use efficiency is not addressed. Guo et al. (2010) noted that optimal nutrient-management strategies can<br />

significantly reduce nitrogen fertilization rates without decreasing crop yield, thus providing benefits to both<br />

agriculture and water quality.<br />

7.5.3 | Filtering of reused grey water<br />

Nearly 80 percent of urban ‘blue water’ becomes wastewater. At about 100 m3yr -1 per household in the<br />

developed world, wastewater thus represents a rapidly expanding environmental and health challenge,<br />

particularly in urban centres. The ecological footprint of untreated wastewater is unsustainable even in<br />

regions where water is plentiful (e.g. South East Asia), as it may either increase nutrient loads in rivers and<br />

coastal regions or represent a direct hazard to human health. By contrast, arid regions increasingly rely on<br />

treated wastewater for irrigation, often practiced with little consideration of long-term impacts on the soil,<br />

hydrology and ecology of the producing area. The sustainability of this coupled agro-urban hydrological cycle<br />

hinges on proper management to mitigate adverse impacts of long-term wastewater use and avoid potential<br />

collapse of soil ecological functions. Various studies (e.g. Bond, 1998; Assouline and Narkis, 2013) have shown<br />

that, over the long term, even irrigation with wastewater results in significantly increased soil ESP that can<br />

adversely impact soil structure and hydraulic properties. In the absence of proper regulation, irrigation with<br />

wastewater may pose a range of human health and other ecological risks associated with introduction<br />

of pathogenic microorganism into the soil and crop (del Mar et al., 2012). The sustainable management of<br />

wastewater irrigation requires new management strategies including water source mixing, proper selection<br />

and rotation of crops, and avoidance of sensitive soils.<br />

7.5.4 | Processes impacting service provision<br />

Trace elements<br />

Elevated concentrations of potentially toxic trace elements can affect provision of the services that depend<br />

on soils. Trace elements – such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and selenium – naturally occur<br />

in low quantities within soils. They may also be introduced and concentrated through anthropogenic activities<br />

like waste disposal, fertilizer and pesticide application, and atmospheric particulate emission and deposition<br />

(Sparks, 2003; Pierzynski, Vance and Sims, 2005). Even when at low concentrations in soils, they can have<br />

pronounced impacts on water quality. This is particularly the case where the capacity of soils to store trace<br />

elements is exceeded or where there are changes in the soil chemical, physical and/or biological environment<br />

that influence the partitioning of trace elements between the solid and aqueous phases.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

192


The concept of the critical load of a specific trace element enables a precautionary assessment of the risks<br />

its input causes to food quality and of the eco-toxicological effects on organisms in soils and surface waters<br />

(Lofts et al., 2007; de Vries et al., 2013b). The critical load of trace elements is defined as “the load resulting<br />

at steady state in a concentration in a compartment (e.g. soil solution, plant, fish) that equals the critical<br />

limit for that compartment” (Lofts et al., 2007; de Vries et al., 2013b). The critical limit is a receptor-specific<br />

concentration below which significant effect on the receptor is assumed not to occur (Lofts et al., 2007). The<br />

concept of critical loads – specifically the critical loads of acidity − was key in gaining acceptance of the need for<br />

reduction of atmospheric deposition of N and S (Section 4.4.1 above). However, the usefulness of the concept<br />

of critical loads of trace elements in international negotiations aimed at reducing trace element deposition<br />

is not equally evident. This is mainly owing to two factors that distinguish trace elements from the case of<br />

acidity and acid rain: (i) the time needed for a specific trace element in a specific scenario to attain steady<br />

state is much longer than for N and S; and (ii) other changes in the environment, notably acidification, may<br />

have a greater influence on the exposure and effects of a specific trace element than the particular amount<br />

entering the system (de Vries et al., 2013b). In fact, problems associated with trace elements in soils are<br />

commonly exacerbated by changes in land use that alter environmental conditions and increase the potential<br />

for exposure to trace elements through food and water consumption. Because of this, in addition to applying<br />

the concept of critical loads, the assessment of the future risks of trace elements needs to employ dynamic<br />

models (de Vries et al., 2013b).<br />

Salinity<br />

Salinization of soil and water resources remains a chronic problem in many parts of the world, mostly in<br />

arid regions where evapotranspiration exceeds rainfall. The increased frequency of extreme climate events<br />

(droughts, intense rainfall events) together with the expansion of irrigated agriculture are expected to increase<br />

the range of soils affected by salinity.<br />

In addition to the effects of hotter and drier climate patterns, the primary causes of salinity risk include:<br />

(i) increasing salt loads due to use of marginal water sources such as waste water; (ii) over exploitation of<br />

coastal aquifers and related sea water intrusion (Várallyay, 1994); (iii) overpumping and degradation of slowly<br />

replenishing inland aquifers (Ogallala); (iv) sea level rise impacting coastal wetlands (e.g. Mexico pacific<br />

coastline); (v) mismanagement of rapidly expanding irrigation in arid regions, particularly inadequate leaching<br />

and drainage and (vi) clearing of perennial vegetation in landscapes with significant salt stores in soils and<br />

deeper regolith.<br />

One solution is to reduce the salt content of irrigation water through desalination. Recent advances in<br />

desalination techniques have resulted in a dramatic reduction in costs. Irrigation experiments with desalinated<br />

water show substantial increase in yield with less water used and less salt leaching to groundwater resources.<br />

However, the use of desalinated water requires careful management to avoid soil and ecological damage (e.g.<br />

clay dispersion) due to irrigation with extremely pure water (Yermiyahu et al., 2007; Tal, 2006).<br />

Erosion<br />

Intensification of agriculture, changes in rainfall patterns with more intense rain events, and potentially<br />

more compacted soil surfaces may all contribute to increased rates of surface soil erosion. In addition to<br />

the removal of the top layer of productive soil and the incision of stream channels, the potential increase in<br />

soil transport to surface water may cause a cascade of adverse effects downstream. Pimentel et al. (1995)<br />

list impacts on stream and lake ecology, dam siltation and effects on waterways, and of course, potential<br />

for enhanced pollution by agrochemicals and colloid-facilitated transport of phosphorous and carbon. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

erosion is also linked to climate change as it mobilizes large amounts of soil organic carbon (SOC). Since the<br />

industrial revolution and associated land use changes, SOC has been estimated to contribute 78±12 Gt of C<br />

to the atmosphere, of which about one-third is due to accelerated erosion and two-thirds to mineralization<br />

(WMO, 2005).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

193


The WMO (2005) report estimates that 25 percent of African soils are prone to risk of water erosion (excluding<br />

deserts that comprise about 46 percent of the African land surface), and that 50 percent of cropland in Australia<br />

is susceptible to water erosion. Drier conditions associated with future climate extremes (droughts) may<br />

limit rates of soil carbon accumulation and reduce soil aggregation, thereby enhancing vulnerability to wind<br />

erosion. WMO (2005) estimate that about 22 percent of the African land surface is prone to wind erosion, and<br />

15 percent of the cropland in Australia. A host of soil conservation strategies for combating land degradation<br />

due to soil erosion also offer co-benefits such as enhanced water storage in the soil profile (Pimentel et al., 1995;<br />

Troeh, Hobbs and Donahue, 1991). Eroded landscapes may take centuries to millennia before their abilities to<br />

provide quality ecosystem services are restored.<br />

7.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and water quantity regulation<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> moisture regulation of precipitation<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> moisture acts as a buffer for precipitation anomalies. As long as the soil is not saturated, it can reduce<br />

the direct impact of flooding. Similarly, soil moisture acts as a buffer against dry anomalies in the onset of<br />

meteorological droughts, before soil moisture or streamflow droughts are noticeable. However, if preevent<br />

soil moisture is anomalously wet or dry, these same properties can also lead to significant flooding<br />

and droughts even where precipitation is not abnormally high or low. For these reasons, the monitoring of<br />

soil moisture conditions (as well as of snow and groundwater) is valuable for the forecasting of floods and<br />

droughts (e.g. Koster et al., 2010b; Fundel, Jörg-Hess and Zappa, 2013; Orth and Seneviratne, 2013; Reager,<br />

Thomas and Famiglietti, 2014).<br />

In addition to effects related to the buffering or persistence of soil moisture, several studies suggest that<br />

soil moisture also affects the regional water cycle through impacts of evapotranspiration on precipitation (e.g.<br />

Beljaars et al., 1996; Koster et al., 2004; Seneviratne et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2012). However, the underlying<br />

feedbacks, including their sign, are strongly model-dependent (e.g. Koster et al., 2004; Hohenegger et al.,<br />

2008). Also observational studies diverge with respect to inferred soil moisture-precipitation feedbacks.<br />

Some suggest the presence of positive (temporal) feedbacks while others identify mostly negative (spatial)<br />

feedbacks (Findell et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2012). In addition, causality is very difficult to establish based on<br />

observations (e.g. Salvucci, Saleem and Kaufmann, 2002). Precipitation persistence could, for example, lead<br />

to some confounding effects (Guillod et al., 2014). Overall, effects of soil moisture on precipitation are still<br />

uncertain.<br />

Human land and water use strongly affects soil moisture variations and the resulting land water balance,<br />

for instance through irrigation (Wisser et al., 2010; Wei et al., 2013) or other changes in agricultural practices<br />

(Davin et al., 2014; Jeong et al., 2014). These effects are generally not considered in present day climate models,<br />

although they could substantially affect soil moisture and hydrological drought projections, including<br />

feedbacks to the atmosphere.<br />

7.6.2 | Precipitation interception by soils<br />

Together with vegetation, soils help to regulate water quantity by intercepting water, reducing floods<br />

and maintaining the soil moisture buffer. Precipitation arriving at the Earth’s surface can be intercepted by<br />

vegetation canopies and returned directly to the atmosphere through evaporation, never reaching the soil<br />

moisture pool. Typically, trees can intercept 25-50 percent of precipitation and shrubs 10-25 percent, while<br />

interception by grass is significantly less (Calder, 1999). The rest of the precipitation arrives at the soil surface,<br />

the characteristics of which control the partitioning between what infiltrates and what runs off into surface<br />

water. In a recent meta-analysis, Jarvis et al. (2013) have shown that K is largely dependent on bulk density,<br />

organic carbon content and land use. This has important consequences for ecosystem service delivery by soils,<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

194


as it indicates that management and land-use change will affect the soil infiltration service temporally as well<br />

as spatially. This analysis by Jarvis et al. (2013) corresponds to an increasing number of studies that show the<br />

importance of vegetation in determining soil K values on similar soils.<br />

Because of their large root systems, trees in particular create conduits for conducting water into soil. Both<br />

dead and living roots can create flow networks. Beven and Germann (1982) cited work suggesting that as much<br />

as 35 percent of the volume of a forest soil may contain macropores formed by roots. Chandler and Chappell<br />

(2008) demonstrated that K was highest near the trunk of single oak trees and decreased toward the edge of<br />

the canopy. The ratio of K geometric mean values under the tree at 3 metres from the trunk to the adjacent<br />

pasture was 3.4 times higher, similar to results compiled from the literature in the same paper. Gonzalez-Sosa<br />

et al. (2010) presented conductivity data for a range of land use types in France, with trees being generally<br />

higher, and crops and pasture lower for the same soil. In the tropics, deforestation results in a major reduction<br />

in infiltration, whether the forest is recently cleared or has been turned into pasture (Zimmermann, Elsenbeer<br />

and De Moraes, 2006).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> macrofauna - worms, ants and termites etc. - also play an important role in determining infiltration at<br />

local scales (Beven and Germann, 1982; Lal, 1988), and perhaps also regionally and globally given the prevalence<br />

of these organisms. There are typically two modes of macrofauna action impacting hydraulic properties. The<br />

first is the creation of burrows forming macropores; the other is the turnover of soil and aggregation which<br />

impacts infiltration and water retention, generally increasing both. <strong>Soil</strong>s might offer potential for slowing<br />

water movement across landscapes under certain precipitation conditions (Marshall et al., 2009). However,<br />

once runoff is generated and large quantities of precipitation fall, the role of soils is likely to be less important.<br />

Above a certain threshold, massive floods can occur in almost any landscape<br />

Although often cited as an important ecosystem service, the impact of land use on altering flood risk<br />

remains hard to quantify with any precision (Pattison and Lane, 2011). The link between land management<br />

and flood risk is complex and scale dependent as conceptualized by Bloschl et al. (2007). Many studies have<br />

demonstrated how land or soil management impact infiltration and runoff generation at the plot to hillslope<br />

scale (Wheater and Evans, 2009). These tend to be local effects in temperate zones, but can be large scale in the<br />

tropics. Beven et al. (2008) found a distinct land use signal hard to detect, and also pointed out that “adequate<br />

information about past land management changes and soil conditions is not readily available but will need<br />

to be collected and made available in future for different land use categories if improved understanding of the<br />

links between runoff and land management is to be gained and used at catchment scales.”<br />

7.6.3 | Surface water regulation<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s provide a maintenance service that contributes to the regulation of base flow and water supply in<br />

rivers. Groundwater, lakes and soil drainage all play a role in setting base flow in surface waters (Price, 2011).<br />

Groundwater dominates in the lowlands, but soil drainage dominates upland catchments. Changes to the<br />

hydraulic characteristics of upland catchments and to the quantity of water stored by soils will have distinct<br />

implications for water supply downstream. Again, the soil water retention characteristics and hydraulic<br />

conductivity play a crucial role in the regulation of drainage.<br />

7.7 | <strong>Soil</strong> change and natural hazard regulation<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> and its characteristics (depth, hydro-mechanical properties, mineralogy, ecological function, and<br />

position in the landscape) play an important role in several natural hazards including: landslides, debris flows,<br />

floods, dam failure, droughts, shrink and swell damage to roads and infrastructure, and more. The United<br />

Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR, 2009) defines a natural hazard as a “natural<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

195


process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss<br />

of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage”. Projected human<br />

population expansion, agricultural intensification, and greater human presence and infrastructure in<br />

mountainous regions combined with projected changes in climate extremes (IPCC, 2012) are expected to<br />

jointly contribute to enhanced vulnerability to soil-mediated natural hazards (Figure 7.9). The extent of the<br />

vulnerability and exposure to a particular type of hazard vary considerably among regions (ESPON, 2013).<br />

For example, floods may increase in flat terrains with increasing mean precipitation or rapid snowmelt, and<br />

landslides may become more common in mountainous areas with changes in the seasonality and intensity of<br />

rainfall (Huggel, Clague and Korup, 2012).<br />

Figure 7.9 A conceptual sketch of how vulnerability, exposure and external events (climate, weather, geophysical) contribute to the<br />

risk of a natural hazard. Source: IPCC, 2012.<br />

The past few decades have been marked by an increase in the frequency and magnitude of damages caused<br />

by soil-climate related hazards such as landslides (Figure 7.10, FAO 2011). In part this increase may be simply<br />

attributed to more timely and accurate reporting, and also to deeper human penetration into soil-hazard<br />

prone regions, facilitated by increases in mobility and personal wealth (Keiler, 2013; Papathoma-Köhle et al.,<br />

2015). The reports of EM-DAT (http://www.emdat.be/publications) provide a global perspective of all aspects of<br />

natural disasters and their human and economic impacts. The 2013 EM-DAT 1 report estimates global damages<br />

by natural hazard attributed to hydrological and geophysical causes (most closely related to soil) in excess of<br />

US$ 60 billion, with impacts on the lives of 40 million people in 2013 alone. It is instructive to place the various<br />

natural hazards in their soil-human-climate context to enable general inferences and detection of future<br />

trends with global change (population growth, land use, and climate change).<br />

1 http://www.emdat.be/publications<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

196


10-year frequency<br />

Ten-year frequency of landslides and associated mortality in Asia<br />

Mortalities<br />

120<br />

7000<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

Frequency<br />

Mortalities<br />

6000<br />

5000<br />

4000<br />

3000<br />

2000<br />

20<br />

1000<br />

0<br />

1950 - 1959<br />

1960 - 1969<br />

1970 - 1979<br />

1980 - 1989<br />

1990 - 1999<br />

2000 - 2009<br />

0<br />

Figure 7.10 Trends in landslide frequency and mortality on Asia. Source: FAO, 2011; EM-DAT, 2010.<br />

7.7.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> landslide hazard<br />

The depth of the soil mantle forming over mountainous topography reflects a natural balance between<br />

soil production and soil erosion processes (Trustrum and De Rose, 1988; Heimsath et al., 1997). The primary<br />

soil removal process in mountainous regions is landsliding, driven by the topographic relief and triggered by<br />

climatic forcing such as rainfall or snowmelt (Iverson, 2000; Larsen, Montgomery and Korup, 2010; Kawagoe,<br />

Kazama and Sarukkalige, 2009) or by earthquakes (Huang and Fan, 2013). Landslide damage is costly: Sidle<br />

and Ochiai (2006) estimated the direct costs associated with rebuilding or replacing infrastructure at several<br />

billion dollars per year, even without considering indirect costs related to construction and temporary loss of<br />

site functionality. Similar estimates have been made just for Europe (Papathoma-Köhle et al., 2015).<br />

Rainfall is the most common trigger for shallow landslides (Iverson, 2000). The strong relationship between<br />

rainfall intensity-duration and landslide triggering conditions has prompted the use of rainfall characteristics<br />

for early warning (Guzzetti et al., 2008; von Ruette, Lehmann and Or, 2014). The observed increase in<br />

precipitation variability and in extreme events attributed to climate change has been linked to the observed<br />

increase in landslide frequency in mountainous regions (Huggel, Clague and Korup, 2012). The recent IPCC<br />

report (IPCC, 2012) lists evidence for the contiguous United States confirming statistically significant increases<br />

in heavy (upper 5 percent) and very heavy (upper 1 percent) precipitation of 14 and 20 percent, respectively.<br />

Moreover, evidence from Europe and the United States suggests that the relative increase in precipitation<br />

extremes is larger than the increase in mean precipitation.<br />

Schmidt and Dikau (2004) found that climatic scenarios representing unstable conditions of transition<br />

from more humid to a dryer climate produced the highest slope instabilities. <strong>Soil</strong> hydraulic properties play an<br />

important in imparting mechanical sensitivity. Indeed, the soil plays multiple roles in the landslide hazard, not<br />

only as the mass that slides down the slope, but also through its own mechanical strength and through its<br />

modulation of local hydrology via infiltration capacity, base flow, macropore flow and ground cover (Iverson,<br />

2000; Sidle and Ochiai, 2006; Lehmann and Or, 2012). The partitioning of precipitation between infiltration,<br />

overland flows and base flows is critical to the loading of the soil and to the ultimate soil failure. The mechanical<br />

reinforcement by plant roots helps to stabilize the soil mantle (Abe and Ziemer, 1991; Schwarz, Cohen and Or,<br />

2012), and bulk soil mechanical and hydraulic properties affect the susceptibility to failure.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

197


Recent widespread drought-induced forest die-offs highlight how climate change could accelerate forest<br />

mortality. This has potential consequences for the carbon cycle and for ecosystem services (Anderegg et<br />

al., 2013). Through loss of root reinforcement, die-off may also increase landslide hazard. Rapid landslide<br />

processes have also been observed in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific where large tropical cyclones<br />

induce numerous landslides and remove significant amounts of soil and particular carbon through the river<br />

systems to the ocean (Hilton et al., 2008). These extreme tropical precipitation events are likely to increase in<br />

frequency and magnitude (Huang et al., 2013).<br />

7.7.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> hazard due to earthquakes<br />

Keefer (2002) provides a historical overview of the study of earthquake-induced landslides. These are often<br />

extensive in their size and occurrence and cause more significant damage than hydrologically-induced shallow<br />

landslides. For example, the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in Sichuan province in China triggered more than<br />

60 000 landslides over an area of 35 000 km 2 causing about one-third of the total number of fatalities in the<br />

earthquake disaster (Huang and Fan, 2013). In addition to the direct damages, the Wenchuan earthquake<br />

induced an unprecedented number of secondary geohazards such as heightened subsequent landslide<br />

frequency, causing river damming and consequent floods as well as debris flows. The links between seismic<br />

activity and landslide characteristics were systematically investigated by Malamud et al. (2004) based on<br />

landslide inventory data of landslide size-frequency distribution in the affected landscape. These analyses are<br />

useful for deriving large-scale soil erosion rates enhanced by seismic activity. Erosion rates in active subduction<br />

zones are around 0.2–7 mm yr -1 . Hazard schemes often classify earthquake-induced landslides as ‘geophysical’<br />

or ‘dry’ events to indicate they do not require water for mass movement initiation, unlike hydrological ‘wet’<br />

landslides.<br />

On March 11, 2011, a seaquake followed by an enormous tsunami and by the destruction of the Fukushima<br />

Atomic Power Plant, Japan, brought about additional soil changes such as liquefaction, tsunami sedimentation<br />

and radio isotope contamination, all of which affected the local population. Liquefaction brought about by the<br />

earthquake occurred mainly on soil-banked lands or soil-dressed lands, causing extreme damage to housing<br />

and structural facilities. The tsunami carried massive deposits from the bottom of the sea onto farmlands<br />

along the seashore. This sedimentation contained considerable quantities of arsenic (Kozak and Niedzielski,<br />

2013). The explosion of the atomic power plant resulted in soil contamination (mainly with Cesium 137) of an<br />

area as large as 800 square kilometres (Steinhauser, 2014; Itoha et al., 2014). Cleaning these contaminants is<br />

vital before the population can return. More broadly, although a variety of soil hazard regulation techniques<br />

have been developed (Gasso et al., 2013; Delgado et al., 2011; Esteves et al., 2012) there is a need for both more<br />

research and more regulation related to soil hazards than hitherto.<br />

7.7.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> and drought hazard<br />

Droughts limit primary production and thus the accumulation rates of organic matter. Reduced<br />

accumulation rates contribute to soil vulnerability to water and wind erosion. Recent meso-scale strategies for<br />

combating drought damage and reducing risk in agro ecosystems have proposed landscape-scale vegetation<br />

management. This can, for example, take the form of patches or bands of perennial vegetation to promote<br />

feedbacks that are conducive to recycling of water vapour, soil moisture and nutrients (Ryan, McAlpine and<br />

Ludwig, 2010). An often ignored consequence of prolonged drought and soil water depletion is soil subsidence<br />

and related damage to buildings and infrastructure (Corti et al., 2011). Corti et al. (2011) presented a systematic<br />

study of damage costs from drought-induced soil subsidence applicable across different climate regimes. The<br />

primary variables include drought severity, soil type (shrink/swell properties), land use, and vegetation.<br />

Prolonged droughts and drier climate patterns accentuate damages due to soil shrink/swell properties.<br />

The insurance industry reports that damage to infrastructure often peaks following extreme drought<br />

events, especially in the densely built up regions of Europe and United States. Dry climate also induces other<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

198


phenomena such as the onset of massive dust storms. Dust storms can arise either from destabilization of<br />

vulnerable surface soils (the Dust Bowl), or from the drying of lake beds, or from desertification and loss of<br />

vegetation and similar soil destabilizing activities over large scales. The rates of wind erosion associated with<br />

sand storms may exceed 100 mm topsoil yr -1 in sensitive regions in the Sahel. Prolonged exposure is known to<br />

pose respiratory health hazards to human population.<br />

7.7.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> and flood hazard<br />

Agricultural intensification has been linked to alteration of runoff mechanisms and to increased risk and<br />

burden of floods (Marshall et al., 2014). Some of the primary changes in land management documented in<br />

the United Kingdom and elsewhere that affect soils include: heavy traffic contributing to soil compaction,<br />

tillage operation and consequent loss of soil structure, the formation of larger fields, choice of cover crops in<br />

rainy seasons, and increased livestock densities (O’Connell et al., 2007). However, establishing rigorous causal<br />

links between changes in land management practices, local runoff generation and catchment scale flood<br />

behaviour remains a challenge (Ewen et al., 2013). Nevertheless, mounting evidence suggests that soil and<br />

land management contribution to flood risk is not limited to management of lowland agricultural regions.<br />

Management of upland soils and related impacts on runoff generation mechanisms cascade and also have<br />

impacts on flood risk downstream (Wheater and Evans, 2009; Marshall et al., 2009). A recent review by Hall et<br />

al. (2014) on flood trends in Europe (including climatic effects) confirms the important role of land use changes<br />

(urbanization, afforestation, etc.) as key factors in modifying large scale flood risk. Some of the strategies for<br />

reducing flood risk include afforestation in upland catchments (Ewen et al., 2013), creation of retention basins,<br />

and adding floodplains by lowering levees (Hall et al., 2014).<br />

7.7.5 | Hazards induced by thawing of permafrost soil<br />

Permafrost is perennially frozen soil remaining at or below 0°C for at least two consecutive years (Brown et<br />

al., 1998). Permafrost regions occupy about 24 percent of the exposed land area in the Northern Hemisphere<br />

and in some high mountainous regions (UNEP, 2012). Expected thawing of permafrost is projected to induce<br />

alterations in soil hydrology and biological activity, and to have an impact on the global carbon cycle (Schuur<br />

et al., 2008). In addition, the thawing of permafrost is expected to change vegetation species and reshape<br />

many ecosystem functions. The mechanical weakening of the previously frozen soil is likely to result in<br />

foundation settling, with damage to buildings, roads, pipelines, railways and power lines (Nelson, Anisimov<br />

and Shiklomonov, 2001; Jorgenson, Shur and Pullman, 2006). Estimates of infrastructure repair in Alaska up<br />

to 2030 are in the range of US$ 6 billion (UNEP, 2012). Changes in mean temperature and snow cover also<br />

affect sensitive permafrost in high mountains, and contribute to a higher risk of landslides and avalanches<br />

(Gruber and Haeberli, 2007; Harris et al., 2009). Schoeneich et al. (2011) present an extensive report and case<br />

studies, largely from the European Alps, on various slope movement hazards (landslides, rock fall, and debris<br />

flow initiation) associated with degrading permafrost. Evidence suggests accelerated erosion rates of the<br />

thawed permafrost, especially along coastlines and rivers banks as documented by Schreiner, Bianchi and<br />

Rosenheim (2014) and Vonk et al. (2012), with subsequent transport of the carbon-rich sediment through river<br />

systems to the ocean.<br />

7.8 | <strong>Soil</strong> biota regulation<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity is vulnerable to many anthropogenic disturbances, including land use and climate change,<br />

nitrogen enrichment, soil pollution, invasive species and the sealing of soil. A recent sensitivity analysis<br />

revealed that increasing land use intensity and associated soil organic matter loss are placing the greatest<br />

pressure on soil biodiversity (Gardi, Jeffery and Saltelli, 2013). Numerous studies report soil biodiversity declines<br />

as result of the conversion of natural lands to agriculture (Bloemers et al., 1997; Eggleton et al., 2002; Dlamini<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

199


and Haynes, 2004), and as a result of agricultural intensification (Mulder et al., 2005; Postma-Blaauw et al.,<br />

2010; De Vries et al., 2013a). In particular, studies show larger bodied soil animals, such as earthworms and<br />

termites are especially vulnerable, but intensive land use can also reduce the abundance and variety of species<br />

of nematodes, mites and collembolans.<br />

Climate change also poses a considerable threat to soil biodiversity through direct effects of warming and<br />

altered precipitation (e.g. drought and flooding) on the availability of moisture in soil (Bardgett et al., 2008).<br />

Indirect climate change effects of warming and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide may also have an impact<br />

on the quantity and quality of organic matter in soil (Blankinship, Niklaus and Hungate, 2011; van Groenigen et<br />

al., 2014). Although poorly understood, predicted increases in the frequency of erosive rainfall events (Nearing<br />

et al., 2005) and climate-induced shifts in land use (Mullan, 2013) could pose a considerable future threat to soil<br />

biodiversity. Other threats to soil biodiversity include nitrogen enrichment, which negatively impacts soil fungi<br />

(Treseder, 2008), soil sealing, which effectively stops the natural functioning of soil (Gardi, Jeffery and Saltelli,<br />

2013), and invasive species, which affect native soil biodiversity through a range of mechanisms, including<br />

altered resource supply, competitive interactions and predation, and physical and chemical modification of<br />

the soil environment (Wardle et al., 2011).<br />

Although it is well known that soil organisms play key roles in many ecosystem processes, our understanding<br />

of the functional consequences of belowground diversity loss is limited, at least compared to what is known<br />

about aboveground losses (Cardinale et al., 2012). Recent synthesis of experimental studies on soil diversityfunction<br />

relationships indicate that diversity effects on processes of nutrient and carbon cycling are highly<br />

variable, but effects of species loss are most pronounced at the low end of the diversity spectrum (Nielsen<br />

et al., 2011). There is also a general consensus that changes in the functional composition of belowground<br />

communities, rather than species diversity per se, are of most importance for ecosystem functioning (Nielsen<br />

et al., 2011). Consistent with this, laboratory studies with low numbers of species have shown the functional<br />

composition of soil macrofauna communities to be a better predictor of litter decomposition than species<br />

richness (Heemsbergen et al., 2004). The selective removal of different groups of soil organisms has been shown<br />

to impair soil functioning (Wagg et al., 2014). Likewise, a recent cross-biome field experiment showed that the<br />

loss of key components of the decomposer communities consistently slowed rates of litter decomposition and<br />

carbon and nitrogen cycling, indicating negative effects of diversity loss on soil functions (Handa et al., 2014).<br />

A field-based study of different sites across Europe also showed that changes in soil food web composition<br />

resulting from intensive agriculture consistently strongly affected processes of carbon and nitrogen cycling<br />

(De Vries et al., 2013a). At one site, high intensity management reduced the resistance and resilience of the soil<br />

food web to drought, increasing soil carbon and nitrogen loss as greenhouse gases and in leachates (De Vries<br />

et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2012c).<br />

Changes in soil biodiversity can also modify vegetation dynamics, both directly through associations of<br />

symbionts and pathogens with plant roots, and indirectly, by modifying nutrient availability to plants (van<br />

der Putten et al., 2013). For example, mycorrhizal fungi, which form symbiotic associations with roots of most<br />

plant species and are very vulnerable to soil disturbances, can enhance plant species diversity by relaxing plant<br />

competition intensity and promoting more equitable distribution of resources within the plant community<br />

(van der Heijden, Bardgett and van Straalen, 2008). Also, plant diversity and productivity have been shown,<br />

in some situations, to be positively related to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal diversity due to more efficient<br />

use of soil phosphorus (van der Heijden et al., 1998). <strong>Soil</strong> pathogens, which cause considerable problems for<br />

agricultural crops, have also been shown to impact vegetation dynamics in natural settings, by suppressing<br />

the growth of their host plant species more than their neighbours, thereby contributing to vegetation change<br />

(Bever, Westover and Antonovics, 1997; Packer and Clay, 2000; Klironomos, 2002). The spread of invasive<br />

plant species has also been linked to release from their natural soil enemies in their new territories, giving<br />

the invasive plant a competitive edge over native species. This often leads to declines in plant diversity and to<br />

shifts in the functioning of the soil (Wardle et al., 2011; van der Putten et al., 2013).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

200


Although poorly explored, diversity changes in soil are likely to impact soil physical properties, with<br />

consequences for ecosystem services related to soil formation and water regulation. Diversity effects on soil<br />

physical properties have not been explicitly studied, but they are likely to be important given the potential for<br />

different groups of soil organisms to differentially impact soil structure through different routes. For example,<br />

fungi promote soil aggregate stability through the physical enmeshment of soil particles by their extensive<br />

networks of mycelia, whereas bacteria produce metabolic products, mainly polysaccharides, which bind<br />

soil particles together (Hallett et al., 2009). Mycorrhizal infection can also influence soil aggregate stability<br />

through physical enmeshment of soil particles by their extensive networks of mycelium, but also through the<br />

binding of soil particles via the production of extracellular polysaccharides and proteins, including the protein<br />

glomalin, which alters the wetting behaviour of soil (Rillig and Mulley, 2006). Finally, soil animals, especially<br />

ecosystem engineers such as earthworms and termites, impact soil structure by creating macropores and<br />

channels, thereby improving water movement through soil (Bardgett, 2005).<br />

While evidence is mounting that shifts in soil biodiversity resulting from human activities have significant<br />

consequences for ecosystem functions and the services that they underpin, there is still much to be learned.<br />

The mechanisms by which soil biodiversity change can impact ecosystem are enormous, involving a range of<br />

ecological and evolutionary processes at different spatial and temporal scales, and links between aboveground<br />

and soil communities. Moreover, impacts of soil biodiversity change on soil functions are likely to be context<br />

dependent, varying with soil abiotic properties and vegetation type. Unravelling this complexity in order to<br />

make better predictions about the consequences of soil biodiversity change for the services that ecosystems<br />

provide is a major challenge.<br />

7.9 | <strong>Soil</strong>s and human health regulation<br />

The linkage between soils and human health is increasingly being recognized (Abrahams, 2006, 2013;<br />

Baumgardner, 2012; Brevik and Burgess, 2013; Jeffrey and van der Putten, 2011; Oliver, 1997). A central<br />

understanding is that soils form an integral link in a holistic view of human health that includes physical,<br />

mental and social dimensions. The soil acts as a natural filter, it can kill off pathogens, it can biodegrade<br />

organics and, in general, it does a wonderful job of protecting us from human health threats. However, soil is<br />

not able to protect itself against all the insults it is subject to on a regular basis.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s aid in the regulation of human health. They do this by keeping in check, or balancing, the beneficial<br />

versus deleterious concentrations of elements and moderating disease-causing organisms. For example, soils<br />

regulate human health by impacting the nutrient quality or nutrient density of foods. Too little of an essential<br />

nutrient in soil can lead to human diseases such as Keshan disease caused by selenium deficiencies in the<br />

human diet (Chen, 2012). Conversely, health problems can be caused by an excess amount of organics or trace<br />

elements such as the arsenic released by soils into the drinking and irrigation waters of Bangladesh (Khan,<br />

Hamra and Mu, 2009) (Section 7.3).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> is a natural source of radiation that can adversely affect human health, and soil can also affect human<br />

health by directly interacting with people. One example is the disease of podoconiosis or Mossy Foot disease<br />

(Mossy Foot Project, 2014). Mossy Foot disease affects about 5 percent of the population in highland tropical<br />

areas with volcanic soils and lots of rainfall. These soils are rich in silicates that can penetrate the skin of<br />

susceptible people as they go barefoot about their daily business. <strong>Soil</strong>s can also act as a reservoir of all kinds<br />

of introduced materials that can impact human health. The dioxin at Love Canal in New York, United States<br />

is a classic example (Silkworth, Culter and Sack, 1989). There are large quantities of industrial and agricultural<br />

products and by-products added to soil every year that have the potential to impact human health.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

201


Vast numbers of people, primarily women, infants and children, are afflicted with trace element deficiencies<br />

(notably Fe, I, Se, and Zn), mostly in the resource-poor countries of the developing world. A diet with low<br />

boron (B) has been found to lead to a number of general health problems and to increase cancer risk. The<br />

most common symptoms of B deficiency include arthritis, memory loss, osteoporosis, degenerative and<br />

soft cartilage diseases, hormonal disequilibria and a drop in libido (Scorei and Popa, 2010). According to one<br />

hypothesis, the low cervical cancer incidence in Turkey correlates with its B-enriched soil (Simsek et al., 2003).<br />

Indeed, the ingestion of B via drinking water prevents cervical cancer risk (Korkmaz et al., 2007). In a survey<br />

in northern France, exposure to high levels of boron (>0.3 mg L -1 ) in the drinking water was associated with<br />

a significantly lower mortality rate as compared to that of a low-boron reference area (Yazbeck et al., 2005).<br />

Silicon is the second most abundant element in the Earth’s crust. Dietary silicon intake is positively<br />

associated with bone mineral density in men and premenopausal women of the Framingham Offspring cohort<br />

(Jugdaohsingh et al., 2004). Silicon is bound to glycosaminoglycans and has an important role in the formation<br />

of cross-links between collagen and proteoglycans (Carlisle, 1976). In vitro studies have demonstrated that<br />

silicon stimulates type 1 collagen synthesis and osteoblast differentiation (Reffitt et al., 2003).<br />

Many physicians have believed that zinc deficiency is a rare occurrence in Japan. Nevertheless, One study<br />

found many zinc-deficient patients at a clinic in Japan since 2002 (Kurasawa, Kubori and Okuizumi, 2010).<br />

Their complaints were anorexia, general fatigue, impaired sense of taste, burning mouth, various types of skin<br />

lesion, delayed wound healing and emotional instability.<br />

Based on dietary intake recommendations, subclinical or marginal Mg deficiency (50 percent to


affect the health of humans and animals and entire ecosystems. The same techniques that are available to<br />

map the human microbiome can also be applied to map the soil microbiome. We are thus on the verge of<br />

understanding what constitutes a healthy soil microbiome and how a degraded or unhealthy soil microbiome<br />

may affect our food production and overall human health.<br />

7.10 | <strong>Soil</strong> and cultural services<br />

The soil is one of the main sources of information on the prehistoric culture of humankind. Indeed, soil<br />

is an excellent medium for preserving artefacts. Different soil types have particular characteristics to<br />

preserve remains. For instance, in permanently or seasonally wet soils, the lack of oxygen slows down the<br />

decomposition of organic matters. Sometimes the remains of animals can be found with hunting marks from<br />

arrows or spears. Well-preserved human bodies have been excavated from moors and bogs. The anaerobic<br />

conditions preserve the bodies very well and several thousands of years later they are excavated with skin,<br />

flesh and clothes still present. Wooden constructions, such as poles for bridges, boats and wooden tools may<br />

also be preserved, giving us valuable information on the level of technology at that time.<br />

Past farming practices can also be recognized in the soil profile, particularly in Anthrosols. For example, in<br />

northwest Europe, notably in the Netherlands and Germany, a human-made soil type, known as plaggen<br />

soil, has developed as a result of a specialized agricultural system. On the strongly leached, acid sandy outwash<br />

plains and moraines, Podzols developed underneath a vegetation cover of heather. Farmers used the heather<br />

and the uppermost level of the soil as bedding in the stables. The droppings from the animals, mixed with the<br />

bedding, were later used as manure on the nearby fields, slowly building up a thick soil layer rich in organic<br />

matter and high in nutrients and with a good soil water retention. These fields provide a relatively high and<br />

stable crop production compared to the surrounding land (European <strong>Soil</strong> Bureau Network, 2005).<br />

In the Amazon basin, the Terra Preta soil owes its name to its very high charcoal content. It was created<br />

by the addition of a mixture of charcoal, bone and manure to the otherwise relatively infertile Amazonian<br />

soil. Terra Preta soils were created by indigenous peoples in the pre-Columbian era between 450 BC and<br />

AD 950 (Sombroek et al., 2002). Technosols are modern examples of soils that store artefacts or are strongly<br />

influenced by (modern) humankind. They include soils from wastes (landfills, sludge, cinders, mine spoils and<br />

ashes), pavements with their underlying unconsolidated materials, and constructed soils in human-made<br />

materials (FAO, 2014).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s provide aesthetic and recreational value through the landscape, particularly in Globally Important<br />

Agricultural Heritage Systems (Koohafkan and Altieri, 2011). They have also been used as an aesthetic approach<br />

to raise soil awareness in contemporary art (Toland and Wessolek, 2014). Churchman and Landa (2014) provide<br />

a comprehensive treatment of the topic.<br />

References<br />

Abe, K. & Ziemer, R.R. 1991. Effects of tree roots on a shear zone: Modelling reinforced shear stress. Can. J.<br />

For. Res., 21: 1012–1019..<br />

Aber, J.D., Nadelhoffer, K. J., Steudler, P. & Melillo, J.M. 1989. Nitrogen saturation in northern forest<br />

ecosystems. BioScience, 39: 378-286.<br />

Abrahams, P.W. 2006. <strong>Soil</strong>, geography and human disease: A critical review of the importance of medical<br />

cartography. Progress in Physical Geography, 30: 490-512.<br />

Abrahams, P.W. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong>s: Their implication to human health. Sci. Total Environ., 291: 1-32.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

203


Ackerman, A.S., Toon, O.B., Stevens, D.E., Heymsfield, A.J., Ramanathan, V. & Welton, E.J. 2000.<br />

Reduction of tropical cloudiness by soot. Science, 288: 1042-1047.<br />

Anderegg, W.R.L., Plavcova, L., Anderegg, L.D.L., Hacke, U.G., Berry, J.A. & Field, C.B. 2013. Drought’s<br />

legacy: multiyear hydraulic deterioration underlies widespread aspen forest die-off and portends increased<br />

future risk. Glob Change Biol., 19: 1188–1196.<br />

Andreae, M.O., Charlson, R.J., Bruynsells, F., Storms, H., Van Grieken, R. & Maenhaut, W.1986. Internal<br />

mixture of sea salt, silicates, and excess sulfate in marine aerosols. Science, 232: 1620-1623.<br />

Aneja, V.P., Schlesinger, W.H. & Erisman, J.W. 2009. Effects of agriculture upon the air quality and climate:<br />

research, policy and regulations. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43: 4234-4240.<br />

Ardón, M., Morse, J.L., Doyle, M.W. & Bernhardt, E.S. 2010. The water quality consequences of restoring<br />

wetland hydrology to a large agricultural watershed in the southeastern coastal plain. Ecosystems, 13:1060-<br />

1078.<br />

Assouline, S. & Narkis, K. 2013. Effect of long-term irrigation with treated wastewater on the root zone<br />

environment. Vadose Zone Journal, 12(2).<br />

Bakker, M.M., Govers, G. & Rounsevell, M.D.A. 2004. The crop productivity-erosion relationship: an<br />

analysis based on experimental work. Catena, 57(1): 55-76.<br />

Bakker, M.M., Govers, G., Jones, R.A. & Rounsevell, M.D.A. 2007. The effect of soil erosion on Europe’s<br />

crop yields. Ecosystems, 10(7): 1209-1219.<br />

Barbagallo, M., Dominguez, L.J., Galioto, A., Ferlisi, A., Cani, C., Malfa, L., Pineo, A., Busardo, A. &<br />

Paolisso, G. 2003: Role of magnesium in insulin action, diabetes and cardio-metabolic syndrome X. Mol.<br />

Aspects Med., 24: 39-52.<br />

Bardgett, R.D. 2005. The Biology of <strong>Soil</strong>: A Community and Ecosystem Approach. UK, Oxford, Oxford University<br />

Press.<br />

Bardgett, R.D., Manning, P., Morrien, E. & De Vries, F.T. 2008. Hierarchical responses of plant–soil<br />

interactions to climate change: consequences for the global carbon cycle. Journal of Ecology, 101: 334- 343.<br />

Batjes, N.H. 1996. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 47:<br />

151–163.<br />

Baumgardner, M.D. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong>-related bacterial and fungal infections. J. Am. Board Fam. Med., 25: 734-744.<br />

Beljaars, A.C.M., Viterbo, P., Miller, M.J. & Betts, A.K. 1996. The anomalous rainfall over the United States<br />

during July 1993: Sensitivity to land surface parameterization and soil moisture. Mon. Weather Rev., 124(3): 362-<br />

383.<br />

Bennett, E.A., Carpenter, S.R. & Caraco, N.F. 2001. Human impact on erodable phosphorus and<br />

eutrophication: A global perspective. Bioscience, 51: 1-8.<br />

Berg, B. & Matzner, E. 1997. Effect of N deposition on decomposition of plant litter and soil organic matter<br />

in forest systems. Environmental Review, 5: 1–25.<br />

Betts, A.K. 2004. Understanding hydrometeorology using global models. B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 85(11): 1673-<br />

1688.<br />

Beven, K. & Germann, P. 1982. Macropores and water flow in soils. Water resources research, 18(5): 1311-1325.<br />

Beven, K.J., Young, P., Romanowicz, R., O’Connell, P.E., Ewen, J., O’Donnell, G.M.O., Homan, I.,<br />

Posthumus, H., Morris, J., Hollis, J., Rose, S., Lamb, R. & Archer, D. 2008. Analysis of Historical Data Sets<br />

to Look for Impacts of Land Use and Management Change on Flood Generation. London, Department for<br />

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

204


Bever, J.D., Westover, K.M. & Antonovics, J. 1997. Incorporating the soil community into plant population<br />

dynamics: the utility of the feedback approach. Journal of Ecology, 85: 561–573.<br />

Birch, M.B., Gramig, B.M., Moomaw, W.R., Doering III, O.C. & Reeling, C.J. 2010. Why Metrics Matter:<br />

Evaluating Policy Choices for Reactive Nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Environmental Science &<br />

Technology, 45: 168-174.<br />

Blankinship, J., Niklaus, P. & Hungate, B. 2011. A meta-analysis of responses of soil biota to global change.<br />

Oecologia, 165: 553-565.<br />

Bloemers, G.F., Hodda, M., Lambshead, P.J.D., Lawton, J.H. & Wanless, F.R. 1997. The effects of forest<br />

disturbance on diversity of tropical soil nematodes. Oecologia, 111: 575 -582.<br />

Bloschl G, Ardoin-Bardin S, Bonnell M, Dorninger M, Goodrich D, Gutknecht D, Matamoros, D., Merz,<br />

B., Shand, P. & Szolgay, J. 2007. At what scales do climate variability and land cover change impact on flooding<br />

and low flows? Hydrological Processes, 21: 1241–1247.<br />

Blum, W.E.H. & Nortcliff, S. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong>s and food security. In E.C. Brevik, & L.C. Burgess, eds. <strong>Soil</strong>s and Human<br />

Health. pp. 299-321. USA, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.<br />

Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D. & Potts, S.G. 2013. Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for<br />

food security. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28: 230-238.<br />

Bond, W.J. 1998. Effluent irrigation—an environmental challenge for soil science. Aust. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Res. 36: 543–<br />

555.<br />

Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental<br />

accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63: 616-626.<br />

Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K.E. & Mooney, H.A. 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem<br />

services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Ann. Rev. Environ. Res., 32: 67-98.<br />

Brevik, E.C. & Burgess, L.C. (eds.) 2013. <strong>Soil</strong>s and Human Health. USA, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.<br />

Brown, J., Ferrians, O.J.Jr., Heginbottom, J.A. & Melnikov, E.S. 1998. Circum-Arctic map of permafrost and<br />

ground-ice conditions. USA, Boulder, CO, National Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for Glaciology,<br />

Digital Media.<br />

Budyko, M.I. 1956. Heat balance of the Earth’s Surface. Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat. 255 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Budyko, M.I. 1974. Climate and Life. Academic Press. 508 pp. [in Russian].<br />

Calder, I.R. 1999. The blue revolution: land use and integrated water resources management. Earthscan.<br />

Cao, M., Gregson, K. & Marshall, S. 1998. Global methane emission from wetlands and its sensitivity to<br />

climate change. Atmospheric Environment, 19: 3293-3299.<br />

Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Nace, G.M.,<br />

Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Dailey, G.C., Loreau, M., Grace, J.B., Larigauderie, A, Srivastave, D.S.<br />

&.Naeem, S. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486: 59-67.<br />

Carlisle, E.M. 1976: In vivo requirement for silicon in articular cartilage and connective tissue formation in<br />

the chick. J Nutr., 106: 478-484.<br />

Carpenter, S.R. & Bennett, E.M. 2011. Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus.<br />

Environmental Research Letters, 6: 014009.<br />

Cassman, K.G., Grassini P. & van Wart, J. 2010. Crop yield potential, yield trends, and global food security in<br />

a changing climate. In D. Hillel & C. Rosenzweig, eds. Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems: Impacts,<br />

Adaptation, and Mitigation. pp. 37-51. Imperial College Press. 453 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

205


Ciais P., Reichstein, M., Viovy, N., Granier, N.A., Ogée, J., Allard, V., Buchmann, N., Aubinet, M.,<br />

Bernhofer, C., Carrara, A., Chevallier, F., De Noblet, N., Friend, A., Friedlingstein, P., Grünwald, T.,<br />

Heinesch, B., Keronen, P., Knohl, A., Krinner, G., Loustau, D., Manca, G., Matteucci, G., Miglietta, F.,<br />

Ourcival, J.M., Pilegaard, K., Rambal, S., Seufert, G., Soussana, J.F., Sanz, M.J., Schulze, E.D., Vesala, T.<br />

& Valentini, R. 2005. Unprecedented European-level Reduction in Primary Productivity caused by the 2003<br />

Heat and Drought. Nature, 437: 529-533.<br />

Clavero, M., Villero, D. & Brotons, L. 2011. Climate Change or Land Use Dynamics: Do we know what<br />

climate change indicators indicate? PlosOne, 6(4): e 18581.<br />

Coates, J. 2013. Build it back better: Deconstructing food security for improved measurement and action.<br />

Global Food Security, 2: 188-194.<br />

Cole, D.W. & Rapp, M. 1981. Elemental cycling in forest ecosystems. In D.E. Reichle, ed., Dynamic properties<br />

of forest ecosystems. pp 341–409. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<br />

Compton, J.E., Harrison, J.A., Dennis, R.L., Greaver, T.L., Hill, B.H., Jordan, S.J., Walker, H. & Campbell,<br />

H.V. 2011. Ecosystem services altered by human changes in the nitrogen cycle: a new perspective for United<br />

States decision making. Ecology Letters, 14: 804-815.<br />

Conant, R.T., Ryan, M.G., Ågren, G.I., Birge, H.E., Bradford, M.A., Davidson, E.A., Eliasson, P.E., Evans,<br />

S.E., Frey, S.D., Giardina, C.P., Hopkins, F.M., Hyvönen, R., Kirschbaum, M.U.F., Lavallee, J.M., Leifeld, J.,<br />

Parton, W.J., Steinweg, J.M., Wallenstein, M.D. & Wetterstedt, J.A.M. 2011. Temperature and soil carbon<br />

decomposition – synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Global Change Biology, 17: 3392-3404.<br />

Conley, D.J., Paerl, H.W., Howarth, R.W., Boesch, D.F., Seitzinger, S.P., Havens, K.E., Lancelot, C. &<br />

Likens, G.E. 2009. Controlling eutrophication: nitrogen and phosphorus. Science, 323: 1014-1015.<br />

Cordell, D. & White, S. 2010. Securing a sustainable phosphorus future for Australia. Farm Policy Journal, 7:<br />

1–17.<br />

Corti, T., Wuest, M., Bresch, D. & Seneviratne, S.I. 2011. Drought-induced building damages from<br />

simulations at regional scale. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 11: 3335–3342.<br />

Creswell, A. 2012. Warning as three die from soil disease. The Australian. Article of February 15, 2012. (Also<br />

available at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/warning-as-three-die-from-soil-disease/storye6frg8y<br />

6-1226271161811)<br />

Crosson, P. 2003. Global consequences of land degradation: An economic perspective. In K. Wiebe, ed.<br />

Land Quality, Agricultural Productivity, and Food Security. pp. 36-46. UK, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.<br />

Crutzen, P.J. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature, 415: 23-23.<br />

Chandler, K.R. & Chappell, N.A. 2008. Influence of individual oak (Quercus robur) trees on saturated<br />

hydraulic conductivity. Forest Ecology and Management, 256(5): 1222-1229.<br />

Chen, J. 2007. Rapid urbanization in China: A real challenge to soil protection and food security. Catena, 69:<br />

1-15.<br />

Chen, J. 2012. An original discovery: Selenium deficiency and Keshan disease (an epidemic heart disease).<br />

Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr., 21: 320-326.<br />

Churchman, G.J. & Landa, E.R. (eds.). 2014. The <strong>Soil</strong> Underfoot: Infinite Possibilities for a Finite Resource. CRC<br />

Press.<br />

D’Costa, V.M., McGrann, K.M., Hughes, D.W. & Wright, G.D. 2006. Sampling the antibiotic resistome.<br />

Science, 311: 374-377.<br />

Dai, Q., Shrubsole, M.J., Ness, R.M., Schlundt, D., Cai, Q., Smalley, W.E., Li, M., Shyr, Y. & Zheng, W. 2007:<br />

The relation of magnesium and calcium intakes and a genetic polymorphism in the magnesium transporter to<br />

colorectal neoplasia risk. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 86: 743-751.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

206


Damoah, R., Spichtinger, N., Servranckx, R., Fromm, M., Eloranta, E.W., Razenkov, I.A., James, P.,<br />

Shulski, M., Forster, C. & Stohl, A. 2006. A case study of pyro-convection using transport model and remote<br />

sensing data. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 6: 173-185.<br />

Davidson, E.A., David, M.B., Galloway, J.N., Goodale, C.L., Haeuber, R., Harrison, J. A., Howarth, R.W.,<br />

Jaynes, D.B., Lowrance, R.R., Nolan, B.T., Peel, J.L., Pinder, R.W., Porter, E., Snyder, C.S., Townsend, A.R.<br />

& Ward, M.H. 2012. Excess Nitrogen in the U.S. Environment: Trends, Risks, and Solutions. Ecological Society of<br />

America, Issues in Ecology, 15: 1-16.<br />

Davin, E.L., Seneviratne, S.I., Ciais, P., Olioso, A., & Wang, T. 2014. Preferential cooling of hot extremes<br />

from cropland albedo management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 111(27): 9757-9761.<br />

De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. & Boumans, R.M.J. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and<br />

valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41: 393-408.<br />

De Jeu, R., Wagner, W., Homes, T.R.H., Dolman, A.J., van de Giesen, N.C. & Friesen, J. 2008. Global soil<br />

moisture patterns observed by space borne microwave radiometers and scatterometers. Surv. Geophys., 29(4-<br />

5): 399-420.<br />

De Vries, F.T. & Bardgett, R.D. 2012a. Plant-microbial linkages and ecosystem N retention: lessons for<br />

sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10: 425-432.<br />

De Vries, F.T., Bloem, J., Quirk, H., Stevens, C.J., Bol, R., & Bardgett, R.D. 2012b. Extensive Management<br />

Promotes Plant and Microbial Nitrogen Retention in Temperate Grassland. PLoS ONE, 7: e 51201.<br />

De Vries, F.T., Liiri, M., Bjørnlund, L., Bowker, M., Christensen, S., Setälä, H., & Bardgett, R.D. 2012c.<br />

Land use alters the resistance and resilience of soil food webs to drought. Nature Climate Change, 2: 276-280.<br />

De Vries, F.T., Thébault, E., Liiri, M., Birkhofer, K., Tsiafouli, M.A., Bjørnlund, L., Jørgensen, H.B., Brady,<br />

M.V., Christensen, S., de Ruiter, P.C., d’Hertefeldt, T., Frouz, J., Hedlund, K., Hemerik, L., Hol, W.H.G.,<br />

Hotes, S., Mortimer, S.R., Setälä, H., Sgardelis, S.P., Uteseny, K., van der Putten, W.H., Wolters, V. &<br />

Bardgett, R.D. 2013a. <strong>Soil</strong> food web properties explain ecosystem services across European land use systems.<br />

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110: 14296–14301.<br />

De Vries, W., Groenenberg, J.E., Lofts, S., Tipping, E. & Posch, M. 2013b. Critical loads of heavy metals<br />

for soils. In B.J. Alloway, ed. Heavy metals in soils: trace metals and metalloids in soils and their bioavailability. 3 rd<br />

edition. pp. 211-237. The Netherlands, Dordrecht, Springer. 587 pp.<br />

Deguines, N., Jono, C., Baude, M., Henry, M., Julliard, R. & Fontaine, C. 2014. Large- scale trade- off<br />

between agricultural intensification and crop pollination services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12:<br />

212-217.<br />

Del Mar A.M., Torrecillas, E., Torres, P., Garcı´a-Orenes, F. & Roldan, A. 2012. Long-Term Effects of<br />

Irrigation with Waste Water on <strong>Soil</strong> AM Fungi Diversity and Microbial Activities: The Implications for Agro-<br />

Ecosystem Resilience. PLoS ONE, 7(10): e 47680.<br />

Delgado, J.A., Groffman, P.M., Nearing, M.A., Goddard, T., Reicosky, D., Lal, R., Kitchen, N.R., Rice,<br />

C.W., Towery, D. & Salon, P. 2011.Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Journal of <strong>Soil</strong><br />

and Water Conservation, 66(4): 118-129.<br />

Delucchi, M.A. 2011. A conceptual framework for estimating the climate impacts of land-use change due to<br />

energy crop programs. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(1): 2337-2360.<br />

Den Biggelaar, C., Lal, R., Eswaran, H., Breneman, V.E. & Reich, P.F. 2003. Crop losses to soil erosion<br />

at regional and global scales: evidence from plot-level and GIS data. In K. Wiebe, ed. Land Quality, Agricultural<br />

Productivity, and Food Security. pp. 262-279. UK, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.<br />

Dentener, F.J., Carmichael, G.R., Zhang, Y., Lelieved, J. & Crutzen, P.J. 1996. Role of mineral aerosol as a<br />

reactive surface in the global atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101: 22869-22890.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

207


Diaz, R.J. & Rosenberg, R. 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science,<br />

321: 926-929.<br />

Dirmeyer, P.A., Cash, B.A., Kinter III, J.L., Stan, C., Jung, T., Marx, L., Towers, P., Wedi, N., Adams, J.M.,<br />

Altshuler, E.L., Huang, B., Jin, E.K., & Manganello, J. 2012. Evidence for enhanced land-atmosphere feedback<br />

in a warming climate. J. Hydrometeorology, 13: 981-995.<br />

Dirmeyer, P.A., Gao, X., Zhao, M., Guo, Z., Oki, T. & Hanasaki, N. 2006. GSWP-2: Multimodel analysis and<br />

implications for our perception of the land surface. B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 87: 1381—1397.<br />

Dlamini, T.C. & Haynes, R.J. 2004. Influence of agricultural land use on the size and composition of<br />

earthworm communities in northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Applied <strong>Soil</strong> Ecology, 27: 77-88.<br />

Dorigo, W.A., Xaver, A., Vreugdenhil, M., Gruber, A., Hegyova, A., Sanchis-Dufau, A.D., Zamojski, D.,<br />

Cordes, C., Wagner, W. & Drusch, M. 2013: Global automated quality control of in situ soil moisture data from<br />

the International <strong>Soil</strong> Moisture Network. Vadose Zone Journal, 12.<br />

EEA. 2011. Ammonia (NH 3<br />

) emissions (APE 003). Copenhagen, EEA. (Also available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/<br />

data-and-maps/indicators/eea-32-ammonia-nh 3-emissions-1/assessment-1).<br />

EEA. 2012. Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP). EEA Technical report No 8/2012.<br />

Eggleton, P., Bignell, D.E., Hauser, S., Dibog, L., Norgrove, L. & Madong, B. 2002. Termite diversity<br />

across an anthropogenic disturbance gradient in the humid forest zone of West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems<br />

and Environment, 90: 189-202.<br />

EM-DAT. 2010. The international disasters database. CRED. (Also available at http://www.emdat.be)<br />

Erisman, J.W. & Schaap, M. 2004. The need for ammonia abatement with respect to secondary PM<br />

reductions in Europe. Environmental Pollution, 129: 159-163.<br />

Erisman, J.W., Bleeker, A., Hensen, A. & Vermeulen, A. 2008. Agricultural air quality in Europe and the<br />

future perspective. Atmospheric Environment, 42: 3209-3217.<br />

ESPON. 2013. Territorial Dynamics in Europe - Natural Hazards and Climate Change in European Regions.<br />

Territorial Observation No. 7. Luxembourg, ESPON. 27 pp.<br />

Esteves, T.C.J., Kirkby, M.J., Shakesby, R.A., Ferreira, A.J.D., Soares, J.A.A., Irvine, B.J., Ferreira, C.S.S.,<br />

Coelho, C.O.A., Bento, C.P.M. & Carreiras, M.M. 2012. Mitigating land degradation caused by wildfire:<br />

Application of the PESERA model to fire-affected sites in central Portugal. Geoderma, 191: 40–50.<br />

European <strong>Soil</strong> Bureau Network. 2005. <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas of Europe. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of<br />

the European Communities. 128 pp.<br />

Ewen, J., O’Donnell, G., Bulygina, N., Ballard, C. & O’Connell, E. 2013. Towards understanding links<br />

between rural land management and the catchment flood hydrograph. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 139: 350–357.<br />

Falkowski, P.G., Barber, R.T. & Smetacek, V. 1998. Biogeochemical controls and feedbacks on ocean<br />

primary production. Science, 281: 200-206.<br />

FAO. 1996. Rome declaration on world food security. World Food Summit. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2011. Forests and Landslides. Bangkok, FAO, RAP. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ba0126e/<br />

ba0126e 00.htm).<br />

FAO. 2014. IUSS Working Group WRB. 2014. World Reference Base for <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> 2014. International soil<br />

classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Reports No. 106. Rome,<br />

FAO.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

208


Fenn, M.E., Poth, M.A., Aber, J.D., Baron, J.S., Bormann, B.T., Johnson, D.W., Lemly, A.D., McNulty,<br />

S.G., Ryan, D.F. & Stottlemyer, R. 1998. Nitrogen excess in North American ecosystems: predisposing factors,<br />

ecosystem responses, and management strategies. Ecological Applications, 8(3): 706-733.<br />

Findell, K.L., Gentine, P., Lintner, B.R. & Kerr, C. 2011. Probability of afternoon precipitation in eastern<br />

United States and Mexico enhanced by high evaporation. Nature Geoscience, 4: 434-439.<br />

Firbank, L, Bradbury, R.B., McCracken, D.I. & Stoate, C. 2013. Delivering multiple ecosystem services<br />

from Enclosed Farmland in the UK. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 166: 65‒75.<br />

Fischer, E.M., Seneviratne, S.I., Vidale, P.L., Lüthi, D. & Schär, C. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong> moisture - atmosphere<br />

interactions during the 2003 European summer heatwave. J. Climate, 20: 5081-5099.<br />

Flynn H.C. & Smith P. 2010. Greenhouse Gas Budgets of Crop Production and the Mitigation Potential of Nutrient<br />

Management. UK, York, International Fertiliser Society.<br />

Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily,<br />

G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A.,<br />

Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N. & Snyder, P.K. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309: 570-574.<br />

Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.D.,<br />

O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C.,<br />

Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D. & Zaks, D.P.M. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated<br />

planet. Nature, 478: 337-342.<br />

Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., Fahey, D.W., Haywood, J., Lean, J., Lowe,<br />

D.C., Myhre, G., Nganga, J., Prinn, R., Raga, G., Schulz, M. & Van Dorland, R. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric<br />

Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.<br />

Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. pp. 133–134. Contribution of Working<br />

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge<br />

University Press.<br />

Fowler, D., Coyle, M., Skiba, U., Sutton, M.A., Cape, J.N., Reis, S., Sheppard, L.J., Jenkins, A., Grizzetti,<br />

B., Galloway, J.N., Vitousek, P., Leach, A., Bouwman, A.F., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Dentener, F., Stevenson,<br />

D., Amann, M. & Voss, M. 2013. The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions<br />

of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1621): 20130164.<br />

Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., Von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M.,<br />

Fung, I., Bala, G., John, J., Jones, C., Joos, F., Kato, T., Kawamiya, M., Knorr, W., Lindsay, K., Matthews,<br />

H.D., Raddatz, T., Rayner, P., Reick, C., Roeckner, E., Schnitzler, K.G., Schnur, R., Strassmann, K., Weaver,<br />

A.J., Yoshikawa, C. & Zeng, N. 2006. Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C 4MIP<br />

Model Intercomparison. J. Climate, 19: 3337—3353.<br />

Fundel, F., Jörg-Hess, S. & Zappa, M. 2013. Monthly hydrometeorological ensemble prediction of streamflow<br />

droughts and corresponding drought indices. Hydrological and Earth System Sciences, 17(1-1): 395–407.<br />

Galloway, J.N., Aber, J.D., Erisman, J.W., Seitzinger, S.P., Howarth, R.W., Cowling, E.B. & Cosby, B.J.<br />

2003: The nitrogen cascade. Bioscience, 53: 341-356.<br />

Gardi, C., Jeffery, S. & Saltelli, A. 2013. An estimate of potential threats levels to soil biodiversity in EU.<br />

Global Change Biology, 19: 1538-1548.<br />

Gasso, V., Sörensen, C.A.G., Oudshoorn, F.W. & Green, O. 2013. Review, Controlled traffic farming: A<br />

review of the environmental impacts. Europ. J. Agronomy, 48: 66–73.<br />

Ghassemi, F., Jakeman, A.J. & Nix, H.A. 1995. Salinisation of land and water resources: human causes, extent,<br />

management and case studies. Australia, Canberra, The Australian National University & UK, Oxfordshire,<br />

Wallingford, CAB International.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

209


Greaver, T.L., Sullivan, T.J., Herrick, J.D., Barber, M.C., Baron, J.S., Cosby, B.J., Deerhake, M.E., Dennis,<br />

R.L., Dubois, J.-J. B., Goodale, C.L., Herlihy, A.T., Lawrence, G.B., Liu, L., Lynch, J.A. & Novak, K.J. 2012.<br />

Ecological effects of nitrogen and sulfur air pollution in the US: what do we know? Front. Ecol. Environ., 10:<br />

365-372.<br />

Green, R.E., Cornell, S.J., Scharlemann, J.P. & Balmford, A. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature.<br />

Science, 307(5709): 550-555.<br />

Gruber, S. & Haeberli, W. 2007. Permafrost in steep bedrock slopes and its temperature related<br />

destabilization following climate change. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112: F 02S 18.<br />

Guillod, B., Davin, E.L., Kündig, C., Smiatek, G. & Seneviratne, S.I. 2013: Impact of soil map specifications<br />

for European climate simulations. Climate Dynamics, 40: 123-141.<br />

Guillod, B.P., Orlowsky, B., Miralles, D., Teuling, A.J., Blanken, P.D., Buchmann, N., Ciais, P., Ek, M.,<br />

Findell, K.L., Gentine, P., Lintner, B.R., Scott, R.L., van den Hurk, B. & Seneviratne, S.I. 2014. Land surface<br />

controls on afternoon precipitation diagnosed from observational data: uncertainties and confounding<br />

factors. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14(16): 8343-8367.<br />

Guo, J.H., Liu, X.J., Zhang, Y., Shen, J.L., Han, W.X., Zhang, W.F., Christie, P., Goulding, K.W.T., Vitousek,<br />

P.M. & Zhang, F.S. 2010. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science, 327: 1008-1010.<br />

Guzzetti, F., Peruccacci, S., Rossi, M. & Stark, C. 2008. The rainfall intensity-duration control of shallow<br />

landslides and debris flows: an update. Landslides, 5: 3-17.<br />

Hall, J., Arheimer, B., Borga, M., Brázdil, R., Claps, P., Kiss, A., Kjeldsen, T.R., Kriaučiūnienė, J.,<br />

Kundzewicz, Z.W., Lang, M., Llasat, M.C., Macdonald, N., McIntyre, N., Mediero, L., Merz, B., Merz, R.,<br />

Molnar, P., Montanari, A., Neuhold, C., Parajka, J., Perdigão, R.A.P., Plavcová, L., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.<br />

L., Sauquet, E., Schär, C., Szolgay, J., Viglione, A. & Blöschl, G. 2014. Understanding flood regime changes in<br />

Europe: a state-of-the-art assessment. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18: 2735-2772.<br />

Hallett, P.D., Feeney, D.S., Bengough, A.G., Rillig, M.C., Scrimgeour, C.M. & Young, I.M. 2009.<br />

Disentangling the impact of AM fungi versus roots on soil structure and water transport. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 314:<br />

183-196.<br />

Hampton, V., Kaestli, M., Mayo, M., Choy, J.L., Harrington, G., Richardson, L., Benedict, B., Noske,<br />

R., Garnett, S.T., Godoy, D., Spratt, B.G. & Currie, B.J. 2011. Melioidosis in birds and Burkholderia pseudomallei<br />

dispersal, Australia. Emerg. Infect. Dis., 17: 1310-1312.<br />

Handa, I.T., Aerts, R., Berendse, F., Berg, M.P., Bruder, A., Butenschoen, O., Chauvet, E., Gessner, M.O.,<br />

Jabiol, J., Makkonen, M., McKie, B.G., Malmqvist, B., Peeters, E.T.H.M., Scheu, S., Schmid, B., van Ruijven,<br />

J., Vos, V.C.A. & Hattenschwiler, S. 2014. Consequences of biodiversity loss for litter decomposition across<br />

biomes. Nature, 509: 218-221.<br />

Hansen, J. & Nazarenko, L. 2004. Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedo. Proceedings of the National<br />

Academy of Science, 101: 423-428.<br />

Harris, C., Arenson, L.U., Christiansen, H.H., Etzelmüller, B., Frauenfelder, R., Gruber, S., Haeberli, W.,<br />

Hauck, C., Hölzle, M., Humlum, O., Isaksen, K., Kääb, A., Kern-Lütschg, Lehning, M.A., Matsuoka, M.,<br />

Murton, N., Nötzli, J.B., Phillips, J., Ross, M., Seppälä, N., Springman, M., Vonder, S.M. & Mühll, D. 2009.<br />

Permafrost and climate in Europe: Monitoring and modelling thermal, geomorphological and geotechnical<br />

responses. Earth Science Reviews, 92: 117–171.<br />

Hart, R. 2003. Dynamic pollution control—time lags and optimal restoration of marine ecosystems.<br />

Ecological Economics, 47: 79–93.<br />

Heemsbergen, D.A., Berg, M.P., Loreau, M., van Haj, J.R., Faber, J.H. & Verhoef, H.A. 2004. Biodiversity<br />

effects on soil processes explained by interspecific functional dissimilarity. Science, 306: 1019-1020.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

210


Heimann, M. & Reichstein, M. 2008. Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks.<br />

Nature, 451: 289-292.<br />

Heimsath, A., Dietrich, W., Nishiizumi, K. & Finkel, R. 1997. The soil production function and landscape<br />

equilibrium. Nature, 388: 358-361<br />

Hiederer, R. & Köchy, M. 2012. Global <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon Estimates and the Harmonized World <strong>Soil</strong> Database.<br />

EUR 25225 EN. Publications Office of the European Union.79 pp.<br />

Hilton, R., Galy, A., Hovius, N., Chen, M.C., Horng, M.J. & Chen, H. 2008. Tropical-cyclone-driven erosion<br />

of the terrestrial biosphere from mountains. Nature Geosci., 1: 759-762.<br />

Hirschi, M., Seneviratne, S.I., Alexandrov, V., Boberg, F., Boroneant, C., Christensen, O.B., Formayer,<br />

H., Orlowsky, B. & Stepanek, P. 2011. Observational evidence for soil-moisture impact on hot extremes in<br />

southeastern Europe. Nature Geoscience, 4: 17-21.<br />

Hohenegger, C., Brockhaus, P., Bretherton, C. & Schär, C. 2008. The soil moisture-precipitation feedback<br />

in simulations with explicit and parameterized convection. J. Climate, 22(19): 5003-5020.<br />

Hopkins, F.M., Torn, M.S. & Trumbore, S.E. 2012. Warming accelerates decomposition of decadal-cycling<br />

soil carbon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109: 1753-1761.<br />

Houlton, B.Z., Boyer, E., Finzi, A., Galloway, J., Leach, A., Liptzin, D., Melillo, J., Rosenstock, T.S.,<br />

Sobota, D. & Townsend, A.R. 2013. Intentional versus unintentional nitrogen use in the United States: Trends,<br />

efficiency and implications. Biogeochemistry, 114: 11-23.<br />

Howden, N.J.K., Burt, T.P., Worrall, F., Whelan, M.J. & Bieroza, M. 2010. Nitrate concentrations and fluxes<br />

in the River Thames over 140 years (1868–2008): are increases irreversible? Hydrological Processes, 24: 2657-2662.<br />

Huang, P., Xie, S. -P., Hu, K., Huang, G. & Huang, R. 2013. Patterns of the seasonal response of tropical<br />

rainfall to global warming. Nat. Geosci., 6(5): 357–361.<br />

Huang, R. & Fan, X. 2013. The landslide story. Nature Geosci., 6: 325–326.<br />

Hubacek, K., Guan, D., Barrett, J. & Wiedmann, T. 2009. Environmental implications of urbanization and<br />

lifestyle change in China: Ecological and Water Footprints. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(14): 1241-1248.<br />

Huggel, C., Clague, J.J. & Korup, O. 2012. Is climate change responsible for changing landslide activity in<br />

high mountains? Earth Surf. Process. Landf., 37(1): 77–91.<br />

Huntingford, C., Zelazowski, P., Galbraith, D., Mercado, L.M., Sitch, S., Fisher, R., Lomas, M., Walker,<br />

A.P., Jones, C.D., Booth, B.B.B., Malhi, Y., Hemming, D., Kay, G., Good, P., Lewis, S.L., Phillips, O.L., Atkin,<br />

O.K., Lloyd, J., Gloor, E., Zaragoza-Castells, J., Meir, P., Betts, R., Harris, P.P., Nobre, C., Marengo, J. & Cox,<br />

P.M. 2012. Simulated resilience of tropical rainforests to CO 2<br />

-induced climate change. Nature Geoscience, 6:<br />

268-273.<br />

IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A<br />

Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. UK, Cambridge,<br />

Cambridge University Press & USA, NY, New York. 582 pp.<br />

Itoha, S., Katao, N., Eguchib, T., Katao, N. & Takahashia, S. 2014. Radioactive particles in soil, plant, and<br />

dust samples after the Fukushima nuclear accident. <strong>Soil</strong> Science and Plant Nutrition , 60: 540–550.<br />

Iverson, R.M. 2000. Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resour. Res., 36(7): 1897–1910.<br />

Jacobson, M.Z. 2001. Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric<br />

aerosols. Nature, 409: 695-697.<br />

Jarvis, N., Koestel, J., Messing, I., Moeys, J. & Lindahl, A. 2013. Influence of soil, land use and climatic<br />

factors on the hydraulic conductivity of soil. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17: 5185-5195.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

211


Jeffrey S. & van der Putten, W.H. 2011. <strong>Soil</strong> borne human diseases. European Commission, Joint Research<br />

Centre Scientific and Technical Report. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.<br />

Jeong, S.-J., Ho, C.-H., Piao, S., Kim, J., Ciais, P., Lee, Y.-B., Jhun, J.-G. & Park, S.K. 2014. Effects of double<br />

cropping on summer climate of the North China Plain and neighbouring regions. Nature Climate Change, 4(7):<br />

615-619..<br />

Joosten, H., Sirin, A., Couwenberg, J., Laine, J. & Smith, P. 2014. The role of peatlands in climate regulation.<br />

In A. Bonn, T. Allott, M. Evans, H. Joosten, & R. Stoneman, eds. Peatland restoration and ecosystem services. UK,<br />

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<br />

Jordan, S., Stoffer, J. & Nestlerode, J. 2011. Wetlands as sinks for reactive nitrogen at continental and global<br />

scales: A meta-analysis. Ecosystems, 14: 144-155.<br />

Jorgenson, M.T., Shur, Y.L. & Pullman, E.R. 2006. Abrupt increase in permafrost degradation in Arctic<br />

Alaska. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33: L 02503.<br />

Jugdaohsingh, R., Tucker, K.L., Qiao, N., Cupples, L.A., Kiel, D.P. & Powell, J.J. 2004: Dietary Silicon Intake<br />

Is Positively Associated With Bone Mineral Density in Men and Premenopausal Women of the Framingham<br />

Offspring Cohort. J. Bone Miner. Res., 19: 297-307.<br />

Kaufman, Y.J., Tanre D. & Boucher, O. 2002. A satellite view of aerosols in the climate system. Nature, 419:<br />

215-223.<br />

Kawagoe, S., Kazama, S. & Sarukkalige, P.R. 2009. Assessment of snowmelt triggered landslide hazard<br />

and risk in Japan. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 58: 120–129.<br />

Keating, B.A. & Carberry, P.S. 2010. Sustainable production, food security and supply chain implications.<br />

Asp. Appl. Biol. 102: 7–20.<br />

Keating, B.A., Herrero, M., Carberry, P.S., Gardner, J. & Cole, M.B. 2014. Food wedges: Framing the global<br />

food demand and supply challenge towards 2050. Global Food Security, 3: 125-132.<br />

Keefer, D.K. 2002. Investigating landslides caused by earthquakes:a historical review. Surv. Geophys., 23:<br />

473–510.<br />

Keiler, M. 2013. World-wide trends in natural disasters. In P. Bobrowsky, ed., Encyclopaedia of Natural Hazards.<br />

pp. 1111-1114. Springer.<br />

Khan, M.A., Islam, M.R., Panaullah, G.M., Duxbury, J.M., Jahiruddin, M. & Loeppert, R.H. 2009. Fate of<br />

irrigating-water arsenic in rice soils or Bangladesh. Plant <strong>Soil</strong>, 322: 263-277.<br />

Khan, S., Hamra, R.A. & Mu, J. 2009. Water management and crop production for food security in China:<br />

a review. Agricultural Water Management, 96(3): 349-360.<br />

Klironomos, J.N. 2002. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities.<br />

Nature, 417: 67–70.<br />

Koohafkan, P. & Altieri, M.A. 2011. Globally important agricultural heritage systems, a legacy for the future.<br />

Rome, FAO.<br />

Korkmaz, M., Uzgo, E., Bakirdere, S., Aydin, F. & Ataman, Y. 2007. Effects of dietary boron on cervical<br />

cytopathology and on micronucleus frequency in exfoliated buccal cells. Environ. Toxicol., 22: 17-25.<br />

Koster, R.D. & Mahanama, S.P.P. 2012. Land surface controls on hydroclimatological means and variability.<br />

J. Hydrometeorology, 13: 1604-1620.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

212


Koster, R.D., Dirmeyer, P.A., Guo, Z.C., Bonan, G., Chan, E., Cox, P., Gordon, C.T., Kanae, S., Kowalczyk,<br />

E., Lawrence, D., Liu, P., Lu, C.H., Malyshev, S., McAvaney, B., Mitchell, K., Mocko, D., Oki T., Oleson, K.,<br />

Pitman, A., Sud, Y.C., Taylor, C.M., Verseghy, D., Vasic, R., Xue, Y.K. & Yamada, T. 2004. Regions of strong<br />

coupling between soil moisture and precipitation. Science, 305: 1138–1140.<br />

Koster, R.D., Mahanama, S., Yamada, T.J., Balsamo, G., Boisserie, M., Dirmeyer, P., Doblas-Reyes, F.,<br />

Gordon, C.T., Guo, Z., Jeong, J.H., Lawrence, D., Li, Z., Luo, L., Malyshev, S., Merryfield, W., Seneviratne,<br />

S.I., Stanelle, T., van den Hurk, B., Vitart, F. & Wood, E.F. 2010a. The contribution of land initialization to<br />

subseasonal forecast skill: First results from the GLACE-2 Project. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37: L 02402.<br />

Koster, R.D., Mahanama, S.P.P., Livneh, B., Lettenmeier, D.P. & Reichle, R.H. 2010b. Skill in streamflow<br />

forecasts derived from large-scale estimates of soil moisture and snow. Nature Geoscience, 3: 613-616.<br />

Kozak, L. & Niedzielski, P. 2013.The evolution of December 2004 tsunami deposits: Temporal and spatial<br />

distribution of potentially toxic metalloids. Chemosphere, 93: 1856–1865.<br />

Kuno, T., Hatano, Y., Tomita, H., Hara, A., Hirose, Y., Hirata, A., Mori, H., Terasaki, M., Masuda, S. &<br />

Tanaka, T. 2012. Organomagnesium suppresses inflammation-associated colon carcinogenesis in male Crj:<br />

CD-1mice. Carcinogenesis, 34: 361-369.<br />

Kurasawa, R., Kubori, S., & Okuizumi, H. 2010. The Symptoms and Pathogenesis of Zinc Deficiency.<br />

Biomed. Res. Trace Elem., 21: 1-12.<br />

Lal, R. 1988. Effects of macrofauna on soil properties in tropical ecosystems. Agriculture, ecosystems &<br />

environment, 24(1): 101-116.<br />

Lal, R. 2003. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation and global food security: A soil science perspective. In K. Wiebe, ed. Land<br />

Quality, Agricultural Productivity, and Food Security. pp. 16-35. UK, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.<br />

Lal, R. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304:<br />

1623-1627.<br />

Lal, R. 2006. Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic<br />

carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degradation & Development, 17: 197-209.<br />

Larsen, I. J., Montgomery, D.M. & Korup, O. 2010. Landslide erosion controlled by hillslope material.<br />

Nature Geosci., 3: 247-251.<br />

Le Mer, J. & Roger, P. 2001. Production, oxidation, emission and consumption of methane by soils: A review.<br />

Eur. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Biol., 37: 25−50.<br />

Lehmann, P. & Or, D. 2012. Hydromechanical triggering of landslides: From progressive local failures to<br />

mass release. Water Resour. Res., 48: W 03535.<br />

Lofts, S., Chapman, P.M., Dwyer, R.,; Mclaughlin, M.J., Schoeters, I., Sheppard, S.C., Adams, W.J.,<br />

Alloway, B.J., Antunes, P.M.C., Campbell, P.G.C., Davies, B., Degryse, F., De Vries, W., Farley, K.J., Garrett,<br />

R.G., Green, A., Jan, G.B., Hale, B., Harrass, M., Hendershot, W.H., Keller, A., Lanno, R., Tao, L., Liu, W.-<br />

X., Yibing, M., Menzie, C., Moolenaar, S.W., Piatkiewicz, W., Reimann, C., Rieuwerts, J.S., Santore, R.C.,<br />

Sauve, S. Schuetze, G. Schlekat, C., Skeaff, J., Smolders, E., Shu, T., Wilkins, J. & Zhao, F.-J. 2007. Critical<br />

loads of metals and other trace elements to terrestrial environments. Environmental Science and Technology,<br />

41(18): 6326-6331.<br />

Loveland, P. & Webb, J. 2003. Is there a critical level of organic matter in the agricul- tural soils of temperate<br />

regions? A review. <strong>Soil</strong> Till. Res., 70: 1–18.<br />

Ma, J., Folsom, A.R., Melnick, S.L., Eckfeldt, J.H., Sharrett, A.R., Nabulsi, A.A., Hutchinson, R.G.,<br />

Metcalf, P.A. 1995: Associations of serum and dietary magnesium with cardiovascular disease, hypertension,<br />

diabetes, insulin, and carotid arterial wall thickness: the ARIC study. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities<br />

Study. J. Clin. Epidemiol, 48(7): 927-940.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

213


MA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington,<br />

DC, Island Press.<br />

Mahli, Y., Roberts, J.T., Betts, R.A., Killeen, T.J., Li, W. & Nobre, C.A. 2008. Climate change, deforestation,<br />

and the fate of the Amazon. Science, 319: 169-172.<br />

Malamud, B.D., Turcotte, D.L., Guzzetti, F. & Reichenbach, P. 2004. Landslides, earthquakes and erosion.<br />

Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 229: 45–59.<br />

Marshall, M.R., Ballard, C.E., Frogbrook, Z.L., Solloway, I., McIntyre, N., Reynolds, B. & Wheater, H.S.<br />

2014. The impact of rural land management changes on soil hydraulic properties and runoff processes: Results<br />

from experimental plots in upland UK. Hydrol. Process, 28: 2617–2629.<br />

Marshall, M.R., Francis, O.J., Frogbrook, Z.L., Jackson, B.M., McIntyre, N., Reynolds, B., Solloway, I.,<br />

Wheater, H.S. & Chell, J. 2009. The impact of upland land management on flooding: results from an improved<br />

pasture hillslope. Hydrological Processes, 23(3): 464-475.<br />

Martin, J.H. 1990. Glacial-interglacial CO 2<br />

exchange: the iron hypothesis. Paleoceanography, 5: 1-13.<br />

Maskell, L.C., Crowe, A., Dunbar, M.J., Emmett, B., Henrys, P., Keith, A.M., Norton, L.R., Scholefield,<br />

P., Clark, D.B., Simpson, I.C. & Smart, S.M. 2013. Exploring the ecological constraints to multiple ecosystem<br />

service delivery and biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50: 561-571.<br />

McBratney, A., Field, D. J. & Koch, A. 2014. The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma, 213: 203-213.<br />

Miller, R. & Tegen, I. 1998. Climate response to soil dust aerosols. American Meteorological Society, 11: 3247-<br />

3267.<br />

Mitsch, W.J., Day, J.W., Gilliam, J.W., Groffman, P.M., Hey, D.L., Randall, G.W. & Wang, N. 2001. Reducing<br />

nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin: Strategies to counter a persistent<br />

ecological problem. BioScience, 51: 373-388.<br />

Monks, P.S., Granier, C., Fuzzi, S., Stohl, A., Williams, M.L., Akimoto, H., Amann, M., Baklanov, A.,<br />

Baltensperger, U., Bey, I., Blake, N., Blake, R.S., Carslaw, K., Cooper, O.R., Dentener, F., Fowler, D.,<br />

Fragkou, E., Frost, G.J., Generoso, S., Ginoux, P., Grewe, V., Guenther, A., Hanson, H.C., Henne, S., Hjorth,<br />

J., Hofzumahaus, A., Huntrieser, H., Isaksen, I.S.A., Jenkin, M.E., Kaiser, J., Kanakidou, M., Klimont, Z.,<br />

Kulmala, M., Laj, P., Lawrence, M.G., Lee, J.D., Liousse, C., Maione, M., McFiggans, G., Metzger, A.,<br />

Mieville, A., Moussiopoulos, N., Orlando, J.J., O’Dowd, C.D., Palmer, P.I., Parrish, D.D., Petzold, A., Platt,<br />

U., Poschl, U., Prevot, A.S.H., Reeves, C.E., Reimann, S., Rudich, Y., Sellegri, K., Steinbrecher, R., Simpson,<br />

D., ten Brink, H., Theloke, J., van der Werf, G.R., Vautard, R., Vestreng, V., Vlachokostas, Ch. & von Glasow,<br />

R. 2009. Atmospheric composition change – global and regional air quality. Atmospheric Environment, 43(33):<br />

5268-5350.<br />

Montgomery, D.R. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of<br />

Sciences of the United States of America, 104: 13268-13272.<br />

Morford, S.L., Houlton, B.Z., & Dahlgren, R.A. 2011. Increased forest ecosystem carbon and nitrogen<br />

storage from nitrogen rich bedrock. Nature, 477(7362): 78-81.<br />

Mossy Foot Project. 2014. (Also available at http://mossyfoot.com/podoconiosis/).<br />

Mueller, B. & Seneviratne, S.I. 2012. Hot days induced by precipitation deficits at the global scale. Proc. Natl<br />

Acad. Sci., 109(31): 12398-12403.<br />

Mulder, C., Cohen, J.E., Setala, H., Bloem, J. & Breure, A.M. 2005. Bacterial traits, organism mass, and<br />

numerical abundance in the detrital soil food web of Dutch agricultural grasslands. Ecology Letters, 8: 80-90.<br />

Mullan, D. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion under the impacts of future climate change: Assessing the statistical<br />

significance of future changes and the potential on-site and off-site problems. Catena, 109: 234-246.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

214


Naeem, S., Bunker, D.E., Hector, A., Loreau, M. & Perrings, C. 2009. Introduction: the ecological and<br />

social implications of changing biodiversity. An overview of a decade of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning<br />

research. In S. Naeem, D.E. Bunker, A. Hector, M. Loreau, Perrings, eds., Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and<br />

Human Wellbeing. pp. 3-13. UK, Oxford, Oxford University Press.<br />

Nearing, M.A., Jetten, V., Cerdan, O., Couturier, A., Hernandez, M., Bissonnais, Y.Le, Nicholas, M.H.,<br />

Nunes, J.P., Renschler, C.S., Souchere, V. & Van Oost, K. 2005. Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff<br />

to changes in precipitation and cover. Catena, 61: 131-154.<br />

Nelson, F.E., Anisimov, O.E. & Shiklomonov, O.I. 2001. Subsidence risk from thawing permafrost. Nature,<br />

410: 889–890.<br />

Nielsen, F.H. 2010. Magnesium, inflammation, and obesity in chronic disease. Nutr. Rev., 68: 333-340.<br />

Nielsen, U., Ayres, E., Wall, D. & Bardgett, R.D. 2011. <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity and carbon cycling: a review and<br />

synthesis of studies examining diversity-function relationships. European Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 62: 105-116.<br />

Nilsson, J. & Grennfelt, P. 1988. Critical loads for sulfur and nitrogen. Report of the Skokloster workshop.<br />

Miljørapport 15. Copenhagen, Nordic Council of Ministers.<br />

O’Connell, E., Ewen, J., O’Donnell, G. & Quinn, P. 2007. Is there a link between agricultural land-use<br />

management and flooding? Hydrology and Earth System Science, 11: 96–107.<br />

Oki, T. & Kanae, S. 2006. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science, 313: 1068–1072.<br />

Oliver, M.A. 1997. <strong>Soil</strong> and human health. A Review. European J. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 48: 573-592.<br />

Olivier, J.G.J., Bouwman, A.F., Van der Hoek, K.W. & Berdowski, J.J.M. 1998. Global air emission inventories<br />

for anthropogenic sources of NOx, NH 3<br />

and N 2<br />

O in 1990. Environmental Pollution, 102: 135-148.<br />

Orlowsky, B. & Seneviratne, S.I. 2013, Elusive drought: Uncertainty in observed trends and short- and<br />

long-term CMIP 5 projections. Hydr. Earth Syst. Sci., 17: 1765-1781.<br />

Orth, R., & Seneviratne, S.I. 2013. Predictability of soil moisture and streamflow on sub-seasonal<br />

timescales: A case study. J. Geophysical Res. - Atmospheres, 118: 10963-10979.<br />

Packer, A. & Clay, K. 2000. <strong>Soil</strong> pathogens and spatial patterns of seedling mortality in a temperate tree.<br />

Nature, 404: 278–281.<br />

Palm, C., Blanco-Canqui, H., DeClerck, F. & Gatere, L. 2014. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem<br />

services: An overview. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, 187: 87-105.<br />

Palm, C., Sanchez, P., Ahamed, S. & Awiti, A. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong>s: A contemporary perspective. Annu. Rev. Environ.<br />

Resour., 32: 99–129.<br />

Papathoma-Köhle, M., Zischg, A.P., Fuchs, S., Glade, T. & Keiler, M. 2015. Loss estimation for landslides<br />

in mountain areas – An integrated toolbox for vulnerability assessment and damage documentation.<br />

Environmental Modelling & Software, 63: 156-169.<br />

Pattison, I. & Lane, S.N. 2011. The link between land-use management and fluvial flood risk: A chaotic<br />

conception?. Progress in Physical Geography, 36(1): 72-92.<br />

Pepper, I.L., Gerba, C.P., Newby, D.T. & Rice, C.W. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong>: A public health threat or savior? Crit. Rev.<br />

Environ. Sci. Technol., 39: 416-432.<br />

Perakis, S.S., Compton, J.E. & Hedin, L.O. 2005. Nitrogen retention across a gradient of 15N additions to<br />

an unpolluted temperate forest soil in Chile. Ecology, 86: 96-105.<br />

Peterjohn, W.T. & Correll, D.L. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations on the<br />

role of a riparian forest. Ecology, 65: 1466-1475.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

215


Petzold, A., Weinzierl, B., Huntrieser, H., Stohl, A., Real, E., Cozic, J., Fiebig, M., Hendricks, J., Lauer, A.<br />

& Law, K. 2007. Perturbation of the European free troposphere aerosol by North American forest fire plumes<br />

during the ICARTT-ITOP Experiment in summer 2004. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, European<br />

Geo-sciences Union (EGU), 7(2): 4925-4979.<br />

Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. & Green, R.E. 2011. Reconciling Food Production and Biodiversity<br />

Conservation: Land Sharing and Land Sparing Compared. Science, 333: 1289-1291.<br />

Pierzynski, G.M., Vance, G.F. & Sims, J.T. 2005. <strong>Soil</strong>s and Environmental Quality, 3 rd Ed. US, Boca Raton, Taylor<br />

& Francis. 569 pp.<br />

Pimentel, D., Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., Sinclair, K., Kurz, D., McNair, M., Crist, S., Shpritz, L., Fitton,<br />

L. & Saffouri, R. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science-<br />

AAAS-Weekly Paper Edition, 267: 1117-1122.<br />

Postma-Blaauw, M.B., de Goede, R.G.M., Bloem, J., Faber, J.H. & Brussaard, L. 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> biota community<br />

structure and abundance under agricultural intensification and extensification. Ecology, 91: 460–473.<br />

Potter, C.S., Davidson, E.A & Verchot, L.V. 1996. Estimation of global biogeochemical controls and<br />

seasonality in soil methane consumption. Chemosphere, 32: 2219–2246.<br />

Pretty, J. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of<br />

the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363: 447-465.<br />

Price, K. 2011. Effects of watershed topography, soils, land use, and climate on baseflow hydrology in humid<br />

regions: A review. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(4): 465-492.<br />

Priemé, A., Christensen, S., Dobbie, K.E. & Smith, K.A. 1997. Slow increase in rate of methane oxidation<br />

in soils with time following land use change from arable agriculture to woodland. <strong>Soil</strong> Biol. Biochem., 29: 1269–<br />

1273.<br />

Prospero, J.M. & Lamb, P.J. 2003. African droughts and dust transport to the Caribbean: climate change<br />

implications. Science, 302: 1024-1027.<br />

Prospero, J.M. & Nees, R.T. 1978. Dust concentration in the atmosphere of the equatorial North Atlantic:<br />

possible relationship to the Sahelian Drought. Science, 196: 1196-1198.<br />

Prospero, J.M., Ginoux, P., Torres, O., Nicholson, S.E. & Gill, T.E. 2002. Environmental characterisation<br />

of global sources of atmospheric soil dust identified with the NIMBUS 7 total ozone mapping spectrometer<br />

(TOMS) absorbing aerosol product. Reviews of Geophysics, 40: 1-31.<br />

Quesada, B., Vautard, R., Yiou, P., Hirschi, M. & Seneviratne, S.I. 2012. Asymmetric European summer<br />

heat predictability from wet and dry Southern winter/springs. Nature Climate Change, 2: 736-741.<br />

Rabotyagov, S.S., Kling, C.L., Gassman, P.W., Rabalais, N.N. & Turner, R.E. 2014. The economics of<br />

dead Zones: Causes, impacts, policy challenges, and a model of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Review of<br />

Environmental Economics and Policy, 8: 58-79.<br />

Ramana, M.V., Ramanathan, V., Feng, Y., Yoon, S-C., Kim, S-W. & Carmichael, G.R. 2010. Warming<br />

influenced by the ratio of black carbon to sulphate and the black-carbon source. Nature Geoscience, 3(8): 542-<br />

545.<br />

Ramanathan, V. & Carmichael, G. 2008. Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nature<br />

Geoscience, 1: 221-227.<br />

Ramaswamy, V., Leovy, C., Rodhe, H., Shine, K., Wang, W.-C., Wuebbles, D., Ding, M., Edmonds,<br />

J.A., Fraser, P., Grant, K., Johnson, C., Lashof, D., Leggett, J., Lelieveld, J., McCormick, M.P., Oort, A.,<br />

Schwarzkopf, M.D., Sutera, A., Warrilow, D.A. & Wigley, T. 2001. Radiative forcing of climate change. In<br />

J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell & C.A. Johnson, eds.<br />

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the<br />

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. pp. 349–416. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press & USA, NY,<br />

New York. 881 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

216


Raufman, Y.J. & Fraser, R.S. 1997. Confirmation of the smoke particles effect on clouds and climate. Science,<br />

277: 1636-1639.<br />

Reager, J.T, Thomas, B.F. & Famiglietti, J.S. 2014. River basin flood potential inferred using GRACE gravity<br />

observations at several months lead time. Nature Geoscience, 7: 588-592.<br />

Reay, D., Davidson, E.A., Smith, K., Smith, P., Melillo, J.M., Dentener, F. & Crutzen, P.J. 2012. Global<br />

agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2(6): 410-416.<br />

Reffitt, D.M., Ogston N., Jugdaohsingh R., Cheung, H.F., Evans, B.A., Thompson, R.P., Powell, J.J. &<br />

Hampson, G.N. 2003. Orthosilicic acid stimulates collagen type 1 synthesis and osteoblastic differentiation in<br />

human osteoblast-like cells in vitro. Bone, 32: 127-135.<br />

Reichle, R.H. 2008. Data assimilation methods in the Earth Sciences. Adv. Water Resour., 31(11): 1411-1418<br />

Reichstein, M., Bahn, M., Ciais, P., Frank, D., Mahecha, M.D., Seneviratne, S.I., Zscheischler, J., Beer,<br />

C., Buchmann, N., Frank, D.C., Papale, D., Rammig, A., Smith, P., Thonicke, K., van der Velde, M., Vicca,<br />

S., Walz, A. & Wattenbach, M. 2013. Climate extremes and the carbon cycle. Nature, 500: 287-295.<br />

Reynolds, B., Chamberlain, P.M., Poskitt, J., Woods, C., Scott, W.A., Rowe, E.C., Robinson, D.A.,<br />

Frogbrook, Z.L., Keith, A.M., Henrys, P.A., Black, H.I.J. & Emmett, B.A. 2013. Countryside Survey: National<br />

“<strong>Soil</strong> Change” 1978-2007 for Topsoils in Great Britain-Acidity, Carbon, and Total Nitrogen Status. Vadose Zone<br />

Journal, 12(2).<br />

Richter, D.D. & Markewitz, D. 2001. Understanding <strong>Soil</strong> Change. Cambridge Univ. Press.<br />

Rillig, M.C. & Mulley, D.L. 2006. Mycorrhizas and soil structure. New Phytol., 171: 41-53.<br />

Robinson, D.A., Hockley, N., Cooper, D.M., Emmett, B.A., Keith, A.M., Lebron, I., Reynolds, B.,<br />

Tipping, E., Tye, A.M., Watts, C.W., Whalley, W.R., Black, H.I.J., Warren, G.P. & Robinson, J.S. 2013.<br />

Natural capital and ecosystem services, developing an appropriate soils framework as a basis for valuation.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Biology and Biochemistry, 57: 1023-1033.<br />

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M.,<br />

Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S.,<br />

Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J.,<br />

Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. & Foley, J.A. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity.<br />

Nature, 461: 472-475.<br />

Rude, R.K., Singer, F.R. & Gruber, H.E. 2009. Skeletal and hormonal effects of magnesium deficiency. J.<br />

Am. Coll. Nutr., 28: 131-141.<br />

Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., Zingore, S., Nyamangara, J. & Giller, K.E. 2013. Pushing the envelope?<br />

Maize production intensification and the role of cattle manure in recovery of degraded soils in smallholder<br />

farming areas of Zimbabwe. Field Crops Research, 147: 40-53.<br />

Ryan, J.G., McAlpine, C.A. & Ludwig, J.A. 2010. Integrated vegetation designs for enhancing water<br />

retention and recycling in agroecosystems. Landscape Ecology., 25(8): 1277-1288.<br />

Salvucci, G.D., Saleem, J.A. & Kaufmann, R. 2002. Investigating soil moisture feedbacks on precipitation<br />

with tests of Granger causality. Adv. Water Resour., 25(8-12): 1305-1312.<br />

Score i, R. & Popa, R. 2010. Boron-containing compounds as preventive and chemotherapeutic agents for<br />

cancer. Anticancer Agents Med. Chem., 10: 346-351.<br />

Scherr, S.J. 1999. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation. A threat to developing country food security by 2020? Food Agriculture, and the<br />

Environment Discussion Paper 27. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute.<br />

Scherr, S.J. 2003. Productivity-related economic impacts of soil degradation in developing countries: an<br />

evaluation of regional experience. In K. Wiebe, ed. Land Quality, Agricultural Productivity, and Food Security. pp.<br />

223-261. UK, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

217


Schimel, D.S. 1995. Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle. Global Change Biology, 1(1): 77–91.<br />

Schlesinger, W.H. & Jasechko, S. 2014. Transpiration in the global water cycle. Agricultural and Forest<br />

meteorology, 189-190: 115-117.<br />

Schmidt, J. & Dikau, R. 2004. Modeling historical climate variability and slope stability. Geomorphology, 60:<br />

433–447.<br />

Schmidt, M.W.I., Torn, M.S., Abiven, S., Dittmar, T., Guggenberger, G., Janssens, I.A., Kleber, M., Kogel-<br />

Knabner, I., Lehmann, J., Manning, D.A.C., Nannipieri, P., Rasse, D.P., Weiner, S. & Trumbore, S.E. 2011.<br />

Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature, 478: 49-56.<br />

Schoeneich, P., Dall’Amico M., Deline P. & Zischg A. (eds). 2011. Hazards related to permafrost and to permafrost<br />

degradation. PermaNET project, state-of-the-art report 6.2. On-line publication.<br />

Schreiner, K.M., Bianchi, T.S. & Rosenheim, B.E. 2014. Evidence for permafrost thaw and transport from<br />

an Alaskan North Slope watershed. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41: 3117–3126.<br />

Schuur, E.A.G., Bockenheim, J.,Canadell, J.P., Euskirchen, E., Field, C.B., Goryachkin, S.V., Hagemann,<br />

S., Kuhry, P., Lafleur, P.M., Lee, H., Mazhitova, G., Nelson, F.E., Rinke, A., Romanovsky, V.E., Shiklomanov,<br />

N., Tarnocai,C., Venevsky, S., Vogel, J.G., and Zimov, S.A., 2008. Vulnerability of permafrost carbon to<br />

climate change: Implications for the global carbon cycle. Bioscience, 58(8): 701-714<br />

Schwarz, M., Cohen, D. & Or, D. 2012. Spatial characterization of root reinforcement at stand scale: Theory<br />

and case study. Geomorphology, 171–172: 190–200.<br />

SEC. 2006. Impact assessment of the thematic strategy on soil protection. Document accompanying, Thematic<br />

Strategy for <strong>Soil</strong> Protection. Communication from the commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the<br />

European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Brussels, SEC.<br />

Seitzinger, S., Harrison, J.A., Bohlke, J.K., Bouwman, A.F., Lowrance, R., Peterson, B., Tobias, C. & Van<br />

Drecht, G. 2006. Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: A synthesis. Ecological Applications, 16:<br />

2064-2090.<br />

Seneviratne, S.I., Corti, T., Davin, E.L., Hirschi, M., Jaeger, E.B., Lehner, I., Orlowsky, B. & Teuling, A.J.<br />

2010. Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a changing climate: A review. Earth-Science Reviews,<br />

99(3-4): 125-161.<br />

Seneviratne, S.I., Lüthi, D., Litschi, M. & Schär, C. 2006. Land-atmosphere coupling and climate change<br />

in Europe. Nature, 443: 205-209.<br />

Seneviratne, S.I., Nicholls, N., Easterling, D., Goodess, C.M., Kanae, S., Kossin, J., Luo, Y., Marengo,<br />

J., McInnes, K., Rahimi, M., Reichstein, M., Sorteberg, A., Vera, C. & Zhang, X. 2012. Changes in climate<br />

extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In C.B. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin,<br />

D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, & P.M. Midgley, eds.<br />

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. pp. 109-230. A Special<br />

Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.<br />

Seneviratne, S.I., Wilhelm, M., Stanelle, T., van den Hurk, B.J.J.M., Hagemann, S., Berg, A., Cheruy, F.,<br />

Higgins, M.E., Meier, A., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Ducharne, A., Dufresne, J.-L., Findell, K.L., Ghattas,<br />

J., Lawrence, D.M., Malyshev, S., Rummukainen, M. & Smith, B. 2013. Impact of soil moisture-climate<br />

feedbacks on CMIP 5 projections: First results from the GLACE-CMIP 5 experiment. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40(19):<br />

5212-5217.<br />

Shcherbak, I., Millar, N. & Robertson, G.P. 2014. Global meta-analysis of the nonlinear response of soil<br />

nitrous oxide (N 2<br />

O) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111: 9199-<br />

9204.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

218


Sheffield, J. & Wood, E.F. 2007. Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from<br />

multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR 4 simulations. Climate Dynamics, 31: 79-105.<br />

Sidle, R.C. & Ochiai, H. 2006. Landslides: Processes, Prediction and Land Use. Washington, DC, American<br />

Geophysical Union.<br />

Silkworth, J.B., Culter, D.S. & Sack, G. 1989. Immunotoxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetracholordibenzo-p-dioxin in a<br />

complex environmental mixture from the Love Canal. Toxicol. Sci., 12:303-312.<br />

Simsek, A., Velioglu, S.Y., Coskun, L.A. & Sayli, B.S. 2003. Boron concentrations in selected foods from<br />

borate-producing regions in Turkey. J. Sci. Food Agric., 83: 586-592.<br />

Sitch, S., Huntingford, C., Gedney, N., Levy, P.E., Lomas, M., Piao, S.L., Betts, R., Ciais, P., Cox, P.,<br />

Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C.D., Prentice, I.C. & Woodward, F.I. 2008. Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon<br />

cycle, future plant geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation<br />

Models (DGVMs). Global Change Biology, 14: 2015–2039.<br />

Smith, P. & Olesen, J.E. 2010. Synergies between mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in<br />

agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Science, 148: 543-552.<br />

Smith, P. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong>s as carbon sinks - the global context. <strong>Soil</strong> Use and Management, 20: 212-218.<br />

Smith, P. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong>s and climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4: 539–544.<br />

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H.H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F.,<br />

Rice, C., Scholes, R.J., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V., Schneider, U.,<br />

Towprayoon, S., Wattenbach, M. & Smith, J.U. 2008. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical<br />

Transactions of the Royal Society, B., 363: 789-813.<br />

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H.H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F.,<br />

Rice, C., Scholes, R.J., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V., Rose, S.,<br />

Schneider, U. & Towprayoon, S. 2007a. Agriculture. In B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave & L.A.<br />

Meyer, eds. Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of<br />

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter. 8. pp. 497-540. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University<br />

Press and New York, USA.<br />

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H.H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F.,<br />

Rice, C., Scholes, R.J., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V., Schneider, U. &<br />

Towprayoon, S. 2007b. Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation<br />

options in agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 118: 6-28.<br />

Snyder, C.S., Davidson, E.A., Smith, P. & Venterea, R.T. 2014. Agriculture: sustainable crop and animal<br />

production to help mitigate nitrous oxide emissions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 9–10: 46–<br />

54.<br />

Sombroek, W., Kern, D., Rodrigues, T., Cravo, M., Jarbas, T., Woods, W. & Glaser, B. 2002. Terra Preta and<br />

Terra Mulata: pre Columbian Amazon kitchen middens and agricultural fields, their sustainability and their replication.<br />

Proceedings 17th World Congress of <strong>Soil</strong> Science. Thailand, Bangkok.<br />

Sparks, D.L. 2003. Environmental <strong>Soil</strong> Chemistry, 2nd Ed. US, San Diego, Academic Press. 352 pp.<br />

Sposito, G. 2008. The Chemistry of <strong>Soil</strong>s, 2nd Ed. Chap. 11. US, New York, Oxford Univ. Press.<br />

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter,<br />

S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan,<br />

V., Reyers, B. & Sörlin, S. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.<br />

Sciencexpress 10.1126/science.1259855.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

219


Steinhauser, G. 2014. Fukushima’s Forgotten Radionuclides: A Review of the Understudied Radioactive<br />

Emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol., 48: 4649−4663.<br />

Steudler, P.A., Jones, R.D., Castro, M.S., Melillo, J.M. & Lewis, D.L. 1996. Microbial controls of methane<br />

oxidation in temperate forest and agricultural soils. In J.C. Murrell & D.P. Kelly, eds. Microbiology of Atmospheric<br />

Trace Gases, pp. 69–84. Springer.<br />

Stocking, M.A. 2003. Tropical soils and food security: the next 50 years. Science, 302: 1356-1359.<br />

Sutton, M.A., Oenema, O., Erisman, J.W., Leip, A., van Grinsven, H. & Winiwarter, W. 2011. Too much of<br />

a good thing. Nature, 472: 159-161.<br />

Sylvain, Z.A. & Wall D.H. 2011. Linking soil biodiversity and vegetation: implications for a changing planet. Am.<br />

J. Bot., 98(3): 517-27.<br />

Takemura, T., Nakajima,T., Bubovik,O., Holben, B. & Kinne S. 2002. Single scattering albedo and<br />

radiative forcing of various aero- sol species with a global three dimensional model. J. Climate, 15: 333–352.<br />

Tal, A. 2006. Seeking sustainability. Israel’s Evolving Water Management Strategy. Science, 313: 1081 – 1084.<br />

Tarnocai, C., Canadell, J.G., Schuur, E.A.G., Kuhry, P., Mazhitova, G. & Zimov, S. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon<br />

pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 23: GB 2023.<br />

Taylor, C.M., de Jeu, R.A.M., Guichard, F., Harris, P.P. & Dorigo, W.A. 2012. Afternoon rain more likely over<br />

drier soils. Nature, 489: 423-426.<br />

Templer, P.H., Mack M.C., Chapin III F.S., Christenson L.M., Compton J.E., Crook H.D., Currie W.S.,<br />

Curtis, C., Dail, B., D’Antonio, C.M., Emmett, B.A., Epstein, H., Goodale, C.L., Gundersen, P., Hobbie, S.E.,<br />

Holland, K., Hooper, D.U., Hungate, B.A., Lamontagne, S., Nadelhoffer, K.J., Osenberg, C.W., Perakis,<br />

S.S., Schleppi, P., Schimel, J., Schmidt, I.K., Sommerkorn, M., Spoelstra, J., Tietema, A., Wessel, W.W. &<br />

Zak, D.R. 2012. Sinks for nitrogen inputs in terrestrial ecosystems: a meta-analysis of 15N tracer field studies.<br />

Ecology, 93(8): 1816-1829.<br />

Teuling, A.J., Hirschi, M., Ohmura, A., Wild, M., Reichstein, M., Ciais, P., Buchmann, N., Ammann, C.,<br />

Montagnani, L., Richardson, A.D., Wohlfahrt, G. & Seneviratne, S.I. 2009. A regional perspective on trends<br />

in continental evaporation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36: L 02404.<br />

Teuling, A.J., Seneviratne, S.I., Stöckli, R., Reichstein, M., Moors, E., Ciais, P., Luyssaert, S., van den<br />

Hurk, B., Ammann, C., Bernhofer, C., Dellwik, E., Gianelle, D., Gielen, B., Grünwald, T., Klumpp, K.,<br />

Montagnani, L., Moureaux, C., Sottocornola, M. & Wohlfahrt, G. 2010. Contrasting response of European<br />

forest and grassland energy exchange to heatwaves. Nature Geoscience, 3: 722-727.<br />

The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB). 2014. (Also available at http://www.teebweb.org/ )<br />

Toland, A.R. & Wessolek, G. 2014. Picturing soils aesthetic approaches to raising soil awareness in<br />

Contemporary Art. In G.J. Churchman & E.R. Landa, ed., The <strong>Soil</strong> Underfoot: Infinite Possibilities for a Finite<br />

Resource. USA, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.<br />

Treseder, K.K. 2008. Nitrogen additions and microbial biomass: a meta-analysis of ecosystem studies.<br />

Ecology Letters, 11: 1111-1120.<br />

Troeh, F.R., Hobbs, J.A. & Donahue, R.L. 1991. <strong>Soil</strong> and Water Conservation. USA, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,<br />

Prentice Hall.<br />

Trustrum, N.A. & De Rose, R.C. 1988. <strong>Soil</strong> depth-age relationship of landslides on deforested hillslopes,<br />

Taranaki, New Zealand. Geomorphology, 1: 143-160.<br />

Tubiello, F.N., Salvatore, M., Rossi, S., Ferrara, A., Fitton, N. & Smith, P. 2013. The FAOSTAT database of<br />

greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environmental Research Letters, 8: 015009.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

220


UNEP. 2012. Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost. UNEP.<br />

UNISDR. 2009. UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. UNISDR.<br />

Van der Ent, R.J., Savenije, H.H.G., Schaefli, B. & Steele-Dunne, S.C. 2010. Origin and fate of atmospheric<br />

moisture over continents. WRR, 46: W 09525.<br />

Van der Heijden, M., Bardgett, R. & van Straalen, N. 2008. The unseen majority: soil microbes as drivers<br />

of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters, 11(3): 296-310.<br />

Van der Heijden, M.G.A., Klironomos, J.N., Ursic, M., Moutoglis, P., Streitwolf-Engel, R., Boller, T.,<br />

Wiemken, A. & Sanders, I.R. 1998. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability<br />

and productivity. Nature, 396: 72–75.<br />

Van der Hoek, K.W. 1998. Estimating ammonia emission factors in Europe: summary of the work of the<br />

UNECE ammonia expert panel. Atmospheric. Environment, 32: 315-316.<br />

Van der Putten, W.H., Bardgett, R.D., Bever, J.D., Bezemer, T.M., Casper, B.B., Fukami, T., Kardol, P.,<br />

Klironomos, J.N., Kulmatiski, A., Schweitzer, J.A., Suding, K.N., Van de Voorde, T.F.J. & Wardle, D.A. 2013.<br />

Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. Journal of Ecology, 101: 265-276.<br />

Van Grinsven, H.J., Holland, M., Jacobsen, B.H., Klimont, Z., Sutton, M.A., & Willems, W.J. 2013. Costs<br />

and benefits of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation. Environmental Science & Technology, 47: 3571-<br />

3579.<br />

Van Groenigen, K.J., Qi, X., Osenberg, C.W., Luo, Y. & Hungate, B.A. 2014. Faster decomposition under<br />

increased atmospheric CO 2<br />

limits soil carbon storage. Science, 344: 508-509.<br />

Van Kauwenbergh, S. 2010. World phosphate rock reserves and resources. USA, Alabama, Muscle Shoals,<br />

International Fertilizer Development Center.<br />

Van Oost, K., Quine, T.A., Govers, G., De Gryze, S., Six, J., Harden, J.W., Ritchie, J.C., McCarty, G.W.,<br />

Heckrath, G., Kosmas, C., Giraldez, J.V., da Silva, M.J.R. & Merckx, R. 2007. The impact of agricultural soil<br />

erosion on the global carbon cycle. Science, 318(5850) : 626-629.<br />

Várallyay, G. 1994. Climate change, soil salinity and alkalinity. In M.D.A. Sounsevell & R.J. Loveland, eds. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Responses to Climate Change. NATO ASI Series. Vol. 23, pp. 3–11. Springer-Verlag, London.<br />

Vautard, R., Yiou, P., D’Andrea, F., de Noblet, N., Viovy, N., Cassou, C., Polcher, J., Ciais, P., Kageyama,<br />

M. & Fan, Y. 2007. Summertime European heat and drought waves induced by wintertime Mediterranean<br />

rainfall deficit. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34 (7): L 07711.<br />

Vince, G. & Raworth, K. 2012. Living in the doughnut. Nature Climate Change, 2: 225-226.<br />

Von Ruette, J., Lehmann, P. & Or, D. 2014. Effects of rainfall spatial variability and intermittency on shallow<br />

landslide triggering patterns at a catchment scale. Water Resour. Res., 50(10): 7780-7799.<br />

Vonk, J.E., Sánchez-García, L., van Dongen, B.E., Alling, V., Kosmach, D., Charkin, A., Semiletov, I.P.,<br />

Dudarev, O.V., Shakhova, N., Roos, P., Eglinton, T.I., Andersson, A. & Gustafsson, Ö. 2012. Activation of old<br />

carbon by erosion of coastal and subsea permafrost in Arctic Siberia. Nature, 489: 137–140.<br />

Wagg, C., Bender, S.F., Widmer, F. & van der Heijden, M.G.A. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity and soil community<br />

composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111: 5266-<br />

5270.<br />

Wagner, W., Bloschl, G., Pampaloni, P., Calvet, J.C., Bizzarri, B., Wigneron, J.P. & Kerr, Y. 2007. Operational<br />

readiness of microwave remote sensing of soil moisture for hydrological applications. Nord. Hydrol., 38: 1-20.<br />

Wang, G.L. 2005. Agricultural drought in a future climate: results from 15 global climate models participating<br />

in the IPCC 4th assessment. Clim. Dynam., 25: 739-753.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

221


Wardle, D.A., Bardgett, R.D., Callaway, R.M. & van der Putten, W.H. 2011. Terrestrial ecosystem responses<br />

to species loss and gain. Science, 332: 1273-1277.<br />

Warren, S.G. & Wiscombe, W.J. 1980. A model for the spectral albedo of snow. II. Snow containing<br />

atmospheric aerosols. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 37: 2734-2745.<br />

We i, J., Dirmeyer, P.A., Wisser, D., Bosilovich, M.G. & Mocko, D.M. 2013. Where Does the Irrigation Water<br />

Go? An Estimate of the Contribution of Irrigation to Precipitation Using MERRA. J. Hydrometeorology, 14: 275-<br />

289.<br />

Weller, D.E. & Baker, M.E. 2014. Cropland Riparian Buffers Throughout Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Spatial<br />

patterns and effects on nitrate loads delivered to streams. Journal of the American Water <strong>Resources</strong> Association,<br />

50: 696-712.<br />

Wheater, H. & Evans, E. 2009. Land use, water management and future flood risk. Land Use Policy, 26: 251-<br />

264.<br />

Wisser, D., Fekete, B.M., Vörösmarty, C.J. & Schumann, A.H. 2010. Reconstructing 20th century global<br />

hydrography: A contribution to the Global Terrestrial Network–Hydrology (GTN–H). Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14:<br />

1–24.<br />

WMO. 2005. Climate and Land Degradation. World Meteorological Organization. ISBN 92-63-10989-3 No. 989<br />

Yang, X., & Post, W.M. 2011. Phosphorus transformations as a function of pedogenesis: A synthesis of soil<br />

phosphorus data using Hedley fractionation method. Biogeosciences, 8(10): 2907-2916.<br />

Yazbeck, C., Kloppmann, W., Cottier, R., Sahuquillo, J., Debotte, G. & Huel, G. 2005. Health impact<br />

evaluation of boron in drinking water: a geographical risk assessment in Northern France. Environ. Geochem.<br />

Health, 27: 419-427.<br />

Yermiyahu, U., Tal, A., Ben-Gal, A., Bar-Tal, A., Tarchitzky, J. & Lahav, O. 2007. Rethinking desalinated<br />

water quality and agriculture. Science, 318: 920-921.<br />

Zimmermann, B., Elsenbeer, H., & De Moraes, J.M. 2006. The influence of land-use changes on soil<br />

hydraulic properties: implications for runoff generation. Forest ecology and management, 222(1): 29-38.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report The impact of soil change on ecosystem services<br />

222


8 | Governance and policy<br />

responses to soil change<br />

8.1 | Introduction<br />

This chapter provides an overview of policy and governance responses to soil change. While most attention<br />

is given to issues at the global, regional and national levels, it is emphasized that effective responses nearly<br />

always have a basis in local action by individual land managers. Indeed, understanding the interconnectedness<br />

and the consequences of actions at each level is central to effective governance and policy.<br />

This book, and in particular the regional assessments of soil change (Chapters 9 to 16), demonstrate that<br />

at the global scale there is a qualitative appreciation of the pressures on soil resources but limited consistent<br />

evidence on their condition and trajectories of change. These assessments reveal that some of the world’s soil<br />

management challenges are immediate, obvious and serious – they arise partly because of the nature of soils<br />

in different regions and their associated history of land management. Other problems are more subtle but<br />

equally important in the long term – they require vigilance and a sustained policy response over decades. At<br />

present, few countries have effective policies to deal with these problems. In short, the world’s soils need to<br />

support at least a 70 percent increase in food production by 2050 (FAO, 2011) but there are some fundamental<br />

uncertainties. For example:<br />

Is there enough arable land with suitable soils to feed the world in coming decades?<br />

Are soil constraints partly responsible for the apparent yield plateau for major crops?<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

223


Can changes to soil management have a significant impact on the seemingly unsustainable global demand<br />

for nutrients?<br />

Can changes to soil management have a significant impact on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse<br />

gases without jeopardising other functions such as food and fibre production?<br />

Will the extent and rate of soil degradation threaten food security and the provision of ecosystem services<br />

in the coming decades?<br />

Can water-use efficiency be improved through better soil management in key regions facing water scarcity?<br />

How will climate change interact with the distribution of soils to produce new patterns of land use?<br />

A comprehensive global view is needed to respond to these questions. A comprehensive view is also needed<br />

to deal with the trans-national aspects of food security and soil degradation. Through trade, most urbanised<br />

people are protected from local resource depletion. The area of land and water used to support a global citizen<br />

is scattered all over the planet. As a consequence, soil degradation and loss of production are not just local or<br />

national issues – they are genuinely international.<br />

The consideration of soil in policy formulation has been weak in most parts of the world. Reasons for this<br />

weakness include the following.<br />

Lack of ready access to the evidence needed for policy action.<br />

The challenge of dealing with a natural resource that is often privately owned but is at the same time an<br />

important public good.<br />

The long-time scales involved in soil change – some of the most important changes take place over decades<br />

and they can be difficult to detect. As a result, communities and institutions may not respond until critical and<br />

irreversible thresholds have been exceeded.<br />

Perhaps even more significant for policy makers is the disconnection between our increasingly urbanized<br />

human societies and the soil. The task of developing effective policies to ensure sustainable soil management is<br />

neither simple to articulate nor easy to implement. This is true regardless of a country’s stage of development,<br />

its natural endowment of soil resources, or the threats to its soil function.<br />

8.2 | <strong>Soil</strong>s as part of global natural resources management<br />

In setting the stage, it is useful to examine the major drivers, pressures and institutional responses to land<br />

use and then set these within the broader international sustainable development agenda (see Table 8.1).<br />

8.2.1 | Historical context<br />

The ‘Great Dust Bowl’ of the 1930s in the United States of America was pivotal because it triggered<br />

widespread public concern about land use, degradation and the need for sustainable management. Severe<br />

wind erosion resulted from the opening up of vast areas for cereal production through mechanisation, with<br />

associated loss of protective vegetation cover. In response, the <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation Service of the USDA was<br />

established in 1935. This served as a model for many other countries facing similar issues (Young, 1994). In 1937,<br />

the United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously stated ‘The nation that destroys its soil destroys<br />

itself.’ This is perhaps the most succinct and sharpest challenge for policy makers and it remains an all-too-real<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

224


contemporary challenge for policy makers in many countries.<br />

After World War Two, many countries experienced food shortages and governments responded by increasing<br />

their investments in agricultural research. Understandably, most of this research focussed on increasing crop<br />

yields and food production. During this period there was also a large investment in soil and land resource<br />

surveys, particularly in Africa and Asia. In the following decades, soil science was strongly supported, with<br />

diverse institutional responses emerging in different regions. In some countries, there was close integration<br />

with other aspects of natural resource management while in others, separate soil agencies were established.<br />

The FAO played an important role in developing influential technical standards (e.g. FAO, 1976) and supporting<br />

within-country programs that aimed to establish sustainable soil and land management. The production of<br />

the FAO-UNESCO (1980) <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World was a landmark achievement.<br />

The success of the Green Revolution (Borlaug, 2000) along with large increases in crop yields in North<br />

America and Europe eventually led to less investment by public agencies in agricultural science and related<br />

activities. The emphasis shifted to environmental issues, a transition which occurred during the 1970s and<br />

1980s, particularly in developed western countries. During the 1990s and 2000s, disinvestment in soil science<br />

was widespread and many soil departments in universities or governments were either closed or incorporated<br />

into natural resource or environmental units. The UN commitment to soil resources through the FAO and<br />

related agencies was also scaled back dramatically.<br />

The food price rises in 2007 and 2008 shocked many policymakers out of the belief that stable or declining<br />

food prices and assured supplies could be taken for granted (Beddington et al., 2012). This period also marked<br />

the start of a critical re-examination of the capacity of the world’s soil resources to support sustainable<br />

agriculture, assist with climate regulation, and safeguard ecosystem services and biodiversity. Before exploring<br />

this topic in more detail, it is useful to review some of the key global agreements relating to soils that emerged<br />

from the 1980s onwards.<br />

8.2.2 | Global agreements relating to soils<br />

In 1982, the FAO adopted the World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter and UNEP published the World <strong>Soil</strong>s Policy (FAO, 1982;<br />

UNEP, 1982). It has been difficult to assess the practical impact of these initiatives. Nevertheless, the principles<br />

and definitions provided useful guidance for national governments that pursued actions on sustainable soil<br />

management.<br />

The first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, 1992, also known as<br />

the ‘Earth Summit’) launched the global environmental agenda (Table 8.1). The UN Convention to Combat<br />

Desertification (UNCCD) addressed issues of desertification, land degradation and drought; the UN<br />

Framework to Combat Climate Change (UNFCCC) was to tackle climate change; and the Convention on<br />

Biological Diversity (CBD) dealt with the challenges of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use (CBD).<br />

Supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), these conventions have raised awareness and mobilised<br />

increased efforts by countries and partners to generate global environmental benefits. These conventions also<br />

cover, albeit with less prominence, issues of soil conservation, sustainable land management and land use<br />

change, taking into account human as well as ecological perspectives (Hurni et al., 2006).<br />

The ecosystem approach promoted by the CBD between 1998 and 2004 (CBD, 2014), recognised that<br />

human management is central to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. This ecosystem approach<br />

was further developed in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005. This paved the way amongst<br />

international agencies and donor funds for more integrated ecosystem approaches in agriculture. These<br />

approaches emphasized the need for sectoral integration, with increased attention given to the benefits of<br />

mixed agroforestry and agro-silvo-pastoral systems. Similar approaches had already been developed in many<br />

countries. Globally, there was a trend towards the use of incentive measures to encourage land users to<br />

adopt sustainable practices which not only enhance production but also maintain biodiversity and ecosystem<br />

services (FAO, 2007; MA, 2005; UNEP, 2004). <strong>Soil</strong>s came to be seen in relation to the services they provide for<br />

human well-being and poverty reduction. However, compared to other functions, soil-related matters did not<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

225


feature prominently in policy or programmes.<br />

Following the food crisis in 2008, policy makers at the international level began to appreciate that soils were<br />

finite and an important factor that had to be considered in the debate on food security. Within the framework<br />

of UNCCD’s ‘Zero Net Land Degradation’, discussions were initiated about the need for quantitative targets<br />

and indicators to measure soil degradation (UNCCD, 2012). Concerns over food insecurity, water scarcity,<br />

climate change and increasing pressures on limited land and water resources led to much greater dialogue,<br />

advocacy and partnerships supporting integrated approaches to this complex set of issues (Beddington et al.,<br />

2012; Steffen et al., 2015).<br />

The UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), took place in June 2012, two decades after the<br />

Earth Summit. In the resulting document, The Future We Want, the international community agreed on the<br />

need to achieve a land degradation neutral world in the context of sustainable development (UN, 2012). The<br />

conference also initiated the process of developing universal Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).<br />

All of the above developments relating to soils and land degradation are framed by the broader issue of<br />

climate change. Again, there is a long institutional history but it is useful to start with the establishment of<br />

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)<br />

and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The IPCC provides the world with scientific and technical<br />

information on climate change and its socio-economic impacts. The next major development was adoption<br />

of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 by the UNFCCC. The Protocol, which entered into force in 2005, committed<br />

industrialized countries to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, in particular carbon dioxide (CO 2<br />

). The Protocol<br />

started as a non-binding agreement but later progressed to legally binding agreements on emission reduction<br />

targets. The Protocol is of great importance for soils and land management because soils are important<br />

carbon sinks. The Protocol recognized opportunities for better management of carbon stores and for the<br />

enhancement of carbon sequestration in forestry and agriculture. There was thus clear recognition that soil<br />

management can be a vehicle to achieve climate goals – and conversely, that soils can be managed to avoid<br />

the loss of carbon through land degradation. Because of the climate system’s sensitivity to soil processes, soilrelated<br />

issues are set to attract increasing attention in future climate agreements.<br />

In recent years, FAO and its member countries have made significant progress in supporting strategies<br />

and policies to improve global governance of soil resources. In order to meet the need for a multilateral<br />

agreement focusing specifically on soil challenges, and to advocate for sustainable soil and land management<br />

at global level, the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership1 (GSP) was proposed by FAO and the EU and then established in<br />

September 2011. The GSP strives to raise awareness among decision makers on the role of soil resources in<br />

relation to food security, climate change, and the provision of ecosystem services (Montanarella and Vargas,<br />

2012). Technical and scientific guidance is provided by the Intergovernmental Technical Panel on <strong>Soil</strong>s (ITPS).<br />

The ITPS complements related scientific advisory panels including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate<br />

Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and the UNCCD’s<br />

Science-Policy Interface (SPI).<br />

The ITPS has been key to the development of the Plans of Action for the five pillars of the Global <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Partnership (Table 8.2). It has also been engaged in the development of the Sustainable Development Goals<br />

and the initiation of formal reporting mechanisms, including the present book. An indication of the emerging<br />

priority accorded to soils and a measure of the impact of the GSP was the declaration by the United Nations<br />

General Assembly of 2015 as the International Year of <strong>Soil</strong>s.<br />

1 www.fao.org/globalsoilpartnership<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

226


Year<br />

1982 FAO World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter<br />

1988 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)<br />

UN Conference on Environment and Development<br />

Rio Declaration<br />

Agenda 21<br />

1992<br />

Global Environmental Facility<br />

UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)<br />

UN Framework to Combat Climate Change (UNFCCC)<br />

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)<br />

1997 Kyoto Protocol<br />

2000 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)<br />

2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment<br />

2008 UNCCD’s Zero Net Land Degradation<br />

2011 Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership initiated (FAO/EU)<br />

2012<br />

Rio+20<br />

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Post-2015 Development Agenda<br />

Intergovernmental Technical Panel on <strong>Soil</strong>s (ITPS) of the GSP<br />

2013<br />

Updated FAO World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter<br />

Land and <strong>Soil</strong>s integrated in the Open Working Group of the Sustainable Development<br />

Goals<br />

Regional <strong>Soil</strong> Partnerships of the GSP<br />

2015 International Year of <strong>Soil</strong>s declared by the UN General Assembly<br />

Table 8.1 Recent Milestones in soil governance and sustainable development<br />

Pillar No.<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

Action<br />

Promote sustainable management of soil resources for soil protection,<br />

conservation and sustainable productivity<br />

Encourage investment, technical cooperation, policy, education awareness<br />

and extension in soil<br />

Promote targeted soil research and development focusing on identified gaps and priorities<br />

and on synergies with related productive, environmental and social development actions<br />

Enhance the quantity and quality of soil data and information: data collection, analysis,<br />

validation, reporting, monitoring and integration with other disciplines<br />

Harmonize methods, measurements and indicators for the sustainable management<br />

and protection of soil resources<br />

Table 8.2 The 5 Pillars of Action of the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

227


8.3 | National and regional soil policies<br />

8.3.1 | Sustainable soil management – criteria and supporting practices<br />

International agreements on soil and land resources are helpful but they are all to no avail unless there are<br />

complementary policies and coordinated activities at regional, national, district and local levels. Appropriate<br />

and effective policies need to reflect the local context in terms of the natural resource issues, culturally<br />

acceptability and economic feasibility. However, a unifying scientific narrative is also needed. In broad<br />

terms, the criteria for determining whether a landscape is functioning effectively and whether soils are being<br />

managed sustainably are as follows.<br />

Leakage of nutrients is low.<br />

Biological production is high relative to the potential limits set by climate and water availability.<br />

Levels of biodiversity within and above the soil are relatively high.<br />

Rainfall is efficiently captured and held within the root zone.<br />

Rates of soil erosion and deposition are low, with only small quantities being transferred out of the system.<br />

Contaminants are not introduced into the landscape and existing contaminants are not concentrated to<br />

levels that cause harm.<br />

Systems for producing food and fibre for human consumption do not rely on large net inputs of energy<br />

Net emissions of Greenhouse Gases are zero or less.<br />

We can manage what we can measure, so the task is to ensure that the above criteria can be measured<br />

against locally appropriate benchmarks. Without this information, policy makers and land managers do<br />

not have indicators of whether they are moving towards sustainability or going backwards. Policy makers<br />

also require an appreciation of how soil and land management practices can be applied to achieve desired<br />

outcomes. Regardless of the level of mechanization and technological sophistication, farming practices in<br />

general need to (FAO, 2013):<br />

Minimize soil disturbance by avoiding mechanical tillage in order to maintain soil organic matter, soil<br />

structure and overall soil function.<br />

Enhance and maintain a protective organic cover on the soil surface, using cover crops and crop residues, in<br />

order to protect the soil surface, conserve water and nutrients and promote soil biological activity.<br />

Cultivate a wide range of plant species – both annuals and perennials – in associations, sequences and<br />

rotations that include trees, shrubs, pastures and crops, in order to enhance crop nutrition and improve<br />

system resilience.<br />

Use well-adapted varieties with resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses and with improved nutritional<br />

quality, and to plant them at an appropriate time, seedling age and spacing.<br />

Enhance crop nutrition and soil function through crop rotations and judicious use of organic and inorganic<br />

fertilizer.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

228


Ensure integrated management of pests, diseases and weeds using appropriate practices, biodiversity and<br />

selective, low-risk pesticides when needed.<br />

Manage water efficiently.<br />

Control machines and field traffic to avoid soil compaction.<br />

Thousands of different soil and land management practices have been developed around the world in<br />

response to local biophysical, social and cultural settings (e.g. WOCAT, 2007). Most cultures have deep<br />

connections with the land, and soil is venerated in diverse ways (Churchman and Land, 2014). In many<br />

regions, traditional knowledge still plays an important role in determining land management. However, most<br />

traditional systems have been disrupted or modified for a wide range of reasons. The two most common<br />

reasons have been the loss of access to land (e.g. invasion and displacement; increasing population densities<br />

causing shorter fallow periods on smaller areas; loss of access to grazing lands) and the arrival of new<br />

technologies.<br />

8.3.2 | Education about soil and land use<br />

Regardless of the culture or landscape setting, knowledge of soil and land resources is the foundation for<br />

achieving sustainable soil management (Dalal-Clayton and Dent, 2001). Spreading knowledge about soils<br />

requires formal education, preferably at all levels of schooling. Some countries are developing comprehensive<br />

and imaginative curricula that use an understanding of soils as a basis for teaching a wide range of cultural,<br />

social, scientific and economic subjects. At a more advanced level, training is needed in a range of soil science<br />

sub-disciplines (e.g. soil physics, soil chemistry, soil biology and pedology), Training in soil science needs to be<br />

linked to related disciplines including geology, ecology, forestry, agronomy, hydrology and other environmental<br />

sciences. Mechanisms for outreach, vocational training and extension are also needed.<br />

Policy makers need to ensure that education systems provide sufficient understanding and training for<br />

a nation to achieve sustainable soil management. In particular, farmers and others directly involved in soil<br />

management require sufficient knowledge to manage their soils profitably and sustainably.<br />

8.3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> research, development and extension<br />

The second key area where policy makers have responsibility is in relation to research, development<br />

and extension. The pioneering work of the <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation Service in the United States and the technical<br />

innovations of the Green Revolution are two examples that demonstrate the power of agricultural science and<br />

technology. The Green Revolution also highlights how trade-offs are required when there is a focus on a single<br />

ecosystem service (food production) at the expense of others (e.g. water quality). Contemporary science policy<br />

often focuses on impact and public benefit. In this regard, soil research is often considered simply as a means<br />

to an end. Although soil science is vital to several important ends, notably agriculture, environment, water<br />

management and climate change, it is often overlooked in priority setting exercises. More formal recognition<br />

of soil resources as a cross-cutting issue in science policy is necessary to ensure it receives sufficient support.<br />

The recent Australian initiative to achieve a more integrated view of soil research, development and extension<br />

is instructive in this regard (Australian Government, 2014).<br />

8.3.4 | Private benefits, public goods and payments for ecosystem services<br />

The amount of regulation on land use and management varies substantially between countries depending<br />

largely on the degree of government intervention. Effective regulations on land use and management require<br />

a good information base for setting critical limits, implementing various zoning schemes and monitoring<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

229


compliance. In practice, regulating soil management practices (e.g. application of manure, moderating or<br />

increasing fertilizer use, control of dryland salinity) and implementing zoning systems (e.g. to protect the best<br />

agricultural soils) involves complex technical, institutional and policy challenges.<br />

Countries that rely less on regulation often opt for incentive schemes to achieve outcomes. Incentives can<br />

range from subsidy systems (e.g. for fertilizer in poor countries or for equipment for conservation tillage in<br />

developed countries) through to various forms of certification for the adoption of specified soil management<br />

practices (e.g. organic farming). Some of these systems have strong economic drivers because they are<br />

mandatory for market access (e.g. participation in supply chains to supermarkets).<br />

Implementing effective policies requires organized systems for monitoring soil conditions and an<br />

understanding of the relationship between soils and land management. Without this basic information, policy<br />

makers have no way of knowing whether regulations and incentive schemes are achieving the desired result.<br />

8.3.5 | Intergenerational equity<br />

Ensuring intergenerational equity is becoming more difficult as human pressures on soil resources reach<br />

critical limits. Most traditional cultures and systems of family farming have strong cultural norms that ensure<br />

tribal lands or family farms are passed to the next generation in the same or better condition than when they<br />

were inherited. However, dramatic changes to land management associated with intensive agriculture, the<br />

adoption of Green Revolution technologies, and intensification of land use more generally, are having a major<br />

impact on soil resources. The area of arable land per capita is decreasing sharply (0.45 ha in 1961, 0.25 ha<br />

in 2000 and a forecast of 0.19 ha in 2050). Future generations will inherit a radically modified land and soil<br />

resource.<br />

Many countries have sophisticated reporting systems for assessing issues relating to intergenerational<br />

equity (e.g. long-term forecasts to determine the viability of pension and health systems; decadal plans for<br />

critical infrastructure). Scenario analysis and futures forecasting are essential to national preparedness and<br />

long-term sustainability. There is now an imperative for policy makers to assess the current trends in soil<br />

condition and natural resource scarcity summarised in this book and to factor in the consequences to scenario<br />

analysis and futures forecasting.<br />

8.3.6 | Land degradation and conflict<br />

Land degradation and resource scarcity can play a role in the rise of conflicts, but these conflicts are rarely<br />

purely resource driven. Where tensions about access and use of natural resources do exist, they depend on<br />

a variety of factors – the outcomes of which may sometimes cascade from tension into violent conflict, but<br />

certainly not always. More often than not, natural resource degradation is a result of conflict rather than a<br />

cause. The existence of land degradation can also lead people to seek cooperative solutions. Policy makers<br />

and others involved in land management can not only act to resolve resource conflicts but also help to prevent<br />

them and to find peaceful mutually acceptable solutions (Frerks et al., 2014; Bernauer, Böhmelt and Koubi,<br />

2012).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

230


8.4 | Regional soil policies<br />

8.4.1 | Africa<br />

Africa has a diverse range of soils and land use systems. However, very large areas, particularly in West<br />

Africa, are infertile or of low fertility, and unsustainable systems of land use are widespread. A leading cause<br />

of low fertility is nutrient depletion (Smaling, 1993; Stoorvogel, Smaling and Janssen, 1993). This is considered<br />

to be the chief biophysical factor limiting small-scale farm production (Drechsel, Giordano and Gyiele, 2004)<br />

although other factors including limited organic matter and erosion are significant as well (Bossio, Geheb<br />

and Critchley, 2010). Mounting concern over these issues contributed to the creation of the New Partnership<br />

for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). This is a vision and policy framework produced by the African Union (AU)<br />

that aims to provide member countries with guidance over their development agenda. Within NEPAD, the<br />

Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) sets out an agenda targeting annual<br />

growth of 6 percent in agricultural production. The Abuja Declaration on Fertilizers, agreed in 2006, laid<br />

out the vision for an African Green Revolution. Central to this was the aim of increasing the level of fertilizer<br />

application from 8 kg ha -1 to 50 kg ha -1 . However, only slow progress has been made in implementing this<br />

agenda at regional and country level (NEPAD, 2012).<br />

Food policy and agricultural development in Africa pose challenges beyond the scope of this book. However,<br />

there are some promising developments even for countries facing the most daunting difficulties owing to rapid<br />

population growth, very low incomes, weathered and infertile landscapes, low levels of literacy, vulnerability<br />

to climate variability and change, disease and significant potential for social unrest. Two of these promising<br />

developments have been supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.<br />

First is the AGRA <strong>Soil</strong> Health Programme which aims to increase income and food security by promoting<br />

the wide adoption of integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) practices among smallholder farmers and<br />

creating an enabling environment for wide adoption of these improved practices across sub-Saharan Africa.<br />

The objective is to improve supply and access to appropriate fertilizers, as well as access to knowledge on IFSM<br />

for over four million smallholders and to strengthen extension and advisory capacity. The Programme also<br />

seeks to influence national policy in favour of investment in fertilizer and ISFM. Some 1.8 million smallholders<br />

are reported to be using ISFM, including fertilizer micro-dosing, manure and legumes in crop rotations, with<br />

yields in the Sahel up three to fourfold in good seasons.<br />

The second promising initiative is the AgWaterSolutions Project. The project concept builds on the existence<br />

of sizable untapped groundwater systems in the region and on the recent availability of small affordable<br />

motorized water pumps. The project promotes small-scale distributed irrigation systems that rely primarily<br />

on groundwater. In these systems, the access point for water, the distribution system and the irrigated crop<br />

all occur at or near the same location. These systems are typically privately owned and managed by individuals<br />

or small groups. The potential in countries such as Burkina Faso is large. This initiative is helping to shift the<br />

attention of policy makers and planners away from large scale irrigation developments.<br />

There are many other significant soil policy issues facing the region. Examples include: the costs and benefits<br />

of subsidy schemes for fertilizers; the growing pressure on land resources and the consequent shortening of<br />

fallow periods; the challenge of making inputs affordable and ensuring market access in areas where poverty<br />

is prevalent; and addressing urban and peri-urban planning so that more intensive and safe food production<br />

systems can develop in and around the rapidly growing African cities.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

231


8.4.2 | Asia<br />

In regions of rapid development in Asia, urbanization, industrialization and intensive land use lead to<br />

unbalanced use of agro-chemicals, poor waste management and acid deposition caused by urban air<br />

pollution. These factors have contributed to increasing soil contamination and acidification. In China, for<br />

example, a soil pollution survey found that 6.4 million square kilometres of arable land are contaminated and<br />

that this represents an alarming threat to human health (Yue, 2014). In consequence, China’s Environmental<br />

Protection Law was revised and strengthened in 2014. However, in China and all across the region the greatest<br />

environmental challenges arise from the gap between legislation and implementation (Mu et al., 2014).<br />

In recent years government policy responses across the region have encouraged improved land use practices<br />

that increased tree cover for carbon sequestration. Carbon-financing schemes have been implemented.<br />

However, government policies have been less effective in dealing with the issue of foreign investment in<br />

agricultural land. In some countries, foreign companies have begun a variety of contractual arrangements<br />

with local farmers, resulting in some cases in the loss of land for smallholders (Fox et al., 2011).<br />

8.4.3 | Europe<br />

Europe has well-established and strong formal governance mechanisms to address environmental issues<br />

at regional, national and sub-national levels. European Union (EU) environmental policies are agreed at<br />

central level but legislated and implemented at the national level. However, the experience with soils policy<br />

has been more complex and only a handful of member states have specific legislation on soil protection. With<br />

the objective of protecting soils across Europe, the European Commission adopted a <strong>Soil</strong> Thematic Strategy<br />

in 2006 which consists of a communication, a proposal for a framework directive (under European Union<br />

legislation) and an impact assessment (EC, 2006). The proposal for a <strong>Soil</strong> Framework Directive would require<br />

member states to adopt a systematic approach to identifying and combating soil degradation. However, this<br />

could not be agreed by the required majority in the European Council and the draft Directive was consequently<br />

withdrawn by the European Commission at the end of 2014. The failure to adopt the directive was largely<br />

due to concerns about subsidiarity, with some member states maintaining that soil was not a matter to be<br />

negotiated at the European level. Others felt that the cost of the directive would be too high, and that the<br />

burden of implementation would be too heavy. However, the Seventh EU Environment Action Plan, which<br />

entered into force in 2014, recognises the severe challenge of soil degradation. It provides that by 2020<br />

land in the EU should be managed sustainably, soil should be adequately protected, and the remediation<br />

of contaminated sites should be well underway. Furthermore it commits the EU and its member states to<br />

increasing efforts to reduce soil erosion, to increase soil organic matter and to remediate contaminated sites<br />

(EC, 2013).<br />

8.4.4 | Eurasia<br />

Eurasian countries have well-developed environmental policies and regulations. However following the<br />

break-up of the Soviet Union, the system of environmental monitoring and conservation collapsed and has<br />

only recently been partially restored. Countries all across the region have maintained and even improved<br />

environmental and soil conservation legislation in recent years, but in most countries the mechanisms for<br />

quality control and environmental monitoring have been weakened. For example, only Belarus and Uzbekistan<br />

maintain their soil survey institutes, and even there soil monitoring has been discontinued.<br />

Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan are the countries with the largest under- or unused agricultural lands in<br />

the world. The World Bank (2011) states that these countries have the capacity to meet the growing global<br />

demand for food. In Russia in 2002 the area of abandoned land reached 70 million ha. Since then there has<br />

been a slow decrease in the area of unused land (Nefedova, 2013). However, it should be noted that most<br />

land abandonment occurred in badlands, wetlands, steep slopes and areas with an unfavourable climate,<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

232


while in areas with fertile soils the investment in land management increased. In countries such as Ukraine<br />

and Georgia, where land tenure legislation allows land ownership by non-residents, foreign capital is being<br />

invested in farmland. Non-transparent land grabs on a large scale are expected to increase, and might have far<br />

reaching consequences for the livelihoods of the rural population (Visser and Spoor, 2010).<br />

8.4.5 | Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)<br />

This region is one of the richest in the world in terms of natural resources. However, rapid exploitation and<br />

export of these resources (minerals, gas, forests, and pastures) is occurring with associated dramatic land<br />

use changes and widespread land degradation. Nonetheless, some countries in the region have developed<br />

and implemented good policies and approaches to mitigate land degradation. These policies, implemented<br />

at national and sub-national levels, are good practice examples that could be replicated in other countries in<br />

the region (UNEP, 2012).<br />

Uruguay provides a good example of soil and land conservation policies: here the soil conservation policy<br />

was designed by the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries (MGAP) within a programme promoting<br />

agricultural intensification, with the objective of implementing a sustainable intensification model. Under<br />

this policy, crop producers must submit soil management plans and state the rotation sequence on each plot.<br />

They must stay within the maximum tolerable soil erosion amount based on local soil characteristics (Hill,<br />

Mondelli and Carrazzone, 2014).<br />

Another example is Cuba’s National Environmental Strategy of 2011/2015 which characterizes soil<br />

degradation as one of the fundamental environmental challenges in the country. The Cuban government<br />

has also implemented action plans to fight desertification and, since 2001, has undertaken programmes for<br />

soil conservation (CITMA, 2011). Brazil’s Forest Code was updated in 2012: it establishes general standards<br />

for protection of forests and other native resources, including soil and water resources. The Forest Code<br />

also integrates legal and economic incentives to promote sustainable production activities. However, closer<br />

analysis of the updated Forest Code suggests that it may in fact allow more deforestation than the previous<br />

version, in response to the demands of agricultural intensification (Soares-Filho et al., 2014).<br />

8.4.6 | The Near East and North Africa (NENA)<br />

This region is considered as the most water scarce and arid region in the world. Moreover, given the<br />

scarcity of land and water resources, this region is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change,<br />

increasing drought, declining soil fertility and consequently declining agricultural production (Wingkvist and<br />

Drakenberg, 2010; Drine, 2011). There are government programs to improve land management in several<br />

countries, especially countries that are party to international agreements and are in receipt of donor support.<br />

Most actions promoting sustainable land management have been to combat desertification under the<br />

framework of the UNCCD (UNCCD, 2012).<br />

Despite significant improvements in the region in tackling the root cause of land degradation, there are<br />

still challenges in enforcing environmental regulations and implementing environmental conservation<br />

policies. The main implementation constraints are: the weakness of institutions at all levels; the difficulty of<br />

coordinating action across sectors, themes, donors and stakeholders; the lack of participation of the local<br />

communities; and tenure insecurity.<br />

MENARID (Integrated Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Management in the Middle East and North Africa) is a<br />

partnership working for improvement of the governance of natural resources, including water. MENARID<br />

supports restoration of natural resources. In particular, the programme aims to improve the livelihoods of<br />

target communities through the restoration of degraded natural resources, including land and soils. It offers<br />

a platform for coordination between stakeholders and information sharing in the countries (ICARDA, 2013).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

233


The NENA region is endowed with oil and gas reserves. In areas of rapid urbanization and oil production,<br />

soil pollution and soil sealing are associated challenges. Parts of the region are extremely sensitive to political<br />

conflicts, and peace and post-conflict are the main focus. Land degradation issues become more pronounced,<br />

but inevitably they have to take second place to other concerns.<br />

8.4.7 | North America<br />

In the United States, federal policies favour market-based instruments within an overall environmental<br />

governance framework, and these instruments have superseded traditional regulatory instruments. Land use<br />

is a priority issue on the political agenda, due to its contribution to GDP through forestry and agriculture.<br />

Governments diminish environmental impacts by paying land managers to implement sustainable land<br />

management practices and soil conservation. Taxes and incentives encourage land and farmland preservation<br />

programmes through payment for ecosystem services (UNEP, 2012).<br />

The United States Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays farmers to remove land from agricultural<br />

production in order to prevent soil erosion and improve ecosystem functions. This set-aside generates<br />

economic benefits of around US$1.3 billion per year (Hellerstein, 2010). However, high prices have made<br />

agriculture more profitable and the rates of payment from CRP have not risen so fast. The amount of land<br />

enrolled in the programme is therefore expected to decline (Wu and Weber, 2012). The Environmental Quality<br />

Incentives Program and the Observation Security Program of 2002 are other programmes that reward<br />

farmers for applying sustainable land management practices. It has been estimated that soil erosion could be<br />

reduced by 17 percent, saving around 36 million tonnes of soil annually. Valued at US$2 per tonne, the cost of<br />

conservation would thus be US$34 million annually, compared to the cost of restoring the soils, estimated at<br />

up to US$332 million (Hellerstein, 2010).<br />

In Canada land-use planning is a provincial responsibility and legislation differs widely among provinces.<br />

British Columbia has a long-standing Agricultural Land Reserve Program that prohibits development on<br />

approximately 4.7 million ha of agricultural land throughout the province. In the early 2000s Ontario created<br />

a Greenbelt that protects 0.7 million ha of agricultural and natural lands in the most populated region<br />

surrounding Toronto. Generally in Canada the implementation of Payment for Ecosystem Services needs still<br />

to be complemented with land use planning frameworks in order to become more effective at all levels of<br />

government (Calbick, Day and Gunton, 2003).<br />

8.4.8 | Southwest Pacific<br />

The scale of land degradation across the countries of the Southwest Pacific has given rise to a range of<br />

significant policy responses all with a strong emphasis on participative engagement and local action. Perhaps<br />

most significant has been the rise of the Landcare Movement in Australia. It began with an unlikely alliance<br />

between traditional opponents (conservationists and farmers) and grew into a movement with thousands of<br />

groups in Australia and in other countries. The activities of Landcare Groups transformed many landscapes<br />

with large areas being revegetated and restored. Youl et al. (2006) provide a good outline of the history and<br />

factors that were important for success. They conclude that the strength of Australian Landcare is that<br />

community groups and networks, with government and corporate support, conceive their own visions and<br />

set goals for local and regional environmental action. Working from the ground up to achieve these goals<br />

creates freedom and flexibility, giving communities a great sense of purpose.<br />

The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) is a regional intergovernmental organisation whose<br />

membership includes both nations and territories in the Pacific Ocean and their metropolitan powers. The<br />

Land <strong>Resources</strong> Division assists the Pacific Community to improve food, nutritional and income security and<br />

sustainable management and development of land, agriculture and forestry resources.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

234


In New Zealand, there are few regulatory instruments directly related to soil. Where they exist, they focus on<br />

soil conservation. However there is an increasing number of national policy instruments that legislate against<br />

the impacts of unwise soil use. The Resource Management Act is given effect at regional level and regulates<br />

activities not outcomes (through regional policy statements, plans and resource consents). These regulatory<br />

instruments typically focus on ensuring soil intactness. However, new initiatives are increasingly looking at<br />

the consenting of land use according to soil capability. New Zealand has also used non-regulatory approaches<br />

to achieve good soil management. These approaches include direct payments, support to the development of<br />

industry codes of practice, and certification schemes to ensure market access.<br />

8.5 | Information systems, accounting and forecasting<br />

The distribution and characteristics of the soils in any district or nation are neither obvious nor easy to<br />

monitor. As a consequence, understanding whether a land use is well-matched to the qualities of the soil<br />

requires some form of diagnostic system to identify the most appropriate form of management and to monitor<br />

how the soil is functioning. Important components of the diagnostic system necessary for sustainable land<br />

use and management are:<br />

an understanding of spatial variations in soil function (e.g. maps and spatial information)<br />

an ability to detect and interpret soil change with time (e.g. via monitoring sites, long-term experiments,<br />

environmental proxies)<br />

a capacity to forecast the likely state of soils under specified systems of land management and climates<br />

(e.g. through the use of simulation models)<br />

an understanding of the edaphic requirements of plants<br />

Preparation of this book was severely constrained by the lack of relevant information. <strong>Soil</strong> map coverages<br />

are variable and, in some regions, out-of-date. The capacity to monitor and forecast soil change is also<br />

rudimentary. All nations require coordinated soil information systems that parallel those that exist in many<br />

countries for economic data, weather and water resources. Action on soil information systems is enshrined<br />

in the World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter’s guidelines for action for governments (Sections VIII and IX) and international<br />

organizations (Sections I and II). However, creating appropriate institutional systems for soil information<br />

gathering and dissemination is challenging for the following reasons:<br />

All levels of government need reliable information on soil resources but often no single level of government<br />

or department has responsibility for collecting this information on behalf of other public sector agencies.<br />

Public and private interests in soil are large and overlapping – mechanisms for co-investment by public and<br />

private agencies are therefore needed.<br />

Market failure in relation to the supply and demand of soil information is a significant and widespread<br />

problem. Simply stated, beneficiaries of soil information do not usually pay for its collection and this reduces<br />

the pool of investment for new survey, monitoring and experimental programmes.<br />

Partly as a result of the above, soil-information gathering activities in many countries are currently funded<br />

through short-term government programmes, private companies or individuals or are produced in response to<br />

specific regulatory requirements. This piecemeal approach does not result in the kind of enduring, accessible<br />

and broadly applicable information systems that are needed to meet the requirements of stakeholders.<br />

The following sections outline some specific requirements that policy makers have of soil information<br />

systems.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

235


8.5.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> information for markets<br />

The various types of markets regulated by governments and other institutions need to be sufficiently<br />

informed to ensure economic efficiency and the desired allocation of resources.<br />

These markets include:<br />

traditional real-estate markets where information is needed on the capital value of soil resources (e.g. the<br />

nutrient status of a farm, presence of contaminants, and options for improved soil management)<br />

carbon trading schemes<br />

cap-and-trade systems for nutrient loading or other pollutants<br />

forecasting of within-season production of agricultural commodities<br />

insurance (e.g. crop insurance, disaster insurance, risk analysis of supply chains).<br />

Oversight and regulation of market activities is a central function of governments in most countries. A key<br />

responsibility for policy makers is to ensure the availability of reliable soil information.<br />

8.5.2 | Environmental accounting<br />

A closely related area where policy makers are starting to need better information is environmental<br />

accounting. Globally, national accounts of economic activity are recorded and indicators such as gross<br />

domestic product (GDP) are widely used in government and policy to assess economic activity and progress.<br />

However, indicators such as GDP measure mainly market-based transactions and are not a good indicator of<br />

welfare; GDP ignores social costs, environmental impacts and income inequality (Costanza et al., 2014). GDP<br />

also does not deduct the direct cost of the depletion of natural resources on national income nor does it take<br />

into account the impact that our resource extraction and use of nature has on the continued functioning of<br />

the Earth system for life support.<br />

In light of these limitations of the current national economic accounting system, the ecosystem services<br />

approach seeks to include nature in our accounting and acknowledge that it has value and its use is not simply<br />

free and limitless (Westman, 1977; Daily, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997; M<br />

A, 2005; Robinson et al., 2014). In this context, soils make an important contribution to the supply of<br />

ecosystem services (Daily et al., 1997; Wall, 2004; Robinson, Lebron and Vereecken, 2009; Dominati, Patterson<br />

and Mackay, 2010; Robinson et al., 2013).<br />

One proposal to address the deficiency of the current national accounts is to have a set of complementary<br />

accounts. Since the early 1990s, the international official statistics community has been developing such a set<br />

of accounts, named the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA). The over-arching objective<br />

of the SEEA approach is to develop an accounting structure that integrates environmental information<br />

with the standard national accounts and hence to mainstream environmental information in economic and<br />

development policy discussion.<br />

The SEEA accounts are presented in two volumes. First, the SEEA Central Framework (UN et al., 2014)<br />

which was adopted as an international statistical standard in 2012, and second, SEEA Experimental Ecosystem<br />

Accounting (UN et al., 2014) which was endorsed in 2013. The SEEA Central Framework deals with individual<br />

environmental assets (minerals, timber, fish, water, soil, etc.), the flows of mass and energy between the<br />

environment and the economy, and the space in which this occurs (Obst and Vardon, 2014). SEEA Experimental<br />

Ecosystem Accounting is focused on the function of ecosystems and the generation of ecosystem services<br />

which is dependent on ecosystem extent, condition and quality.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

236


The SEEA Central Framework identifies seven individual components of the environment as environmental<br />

assets; mineral and energy resources, land, soil resources, timber resources, aquatic resources, other biological<br />

resources (excluding timber and aquatic resources, for example, livestock, orchards, wild plants for medicine,<br />

wild animals that are hunted), and water resources.<br />

SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting uses the same definition of environmental assets but rather<br />

than considering individual components as assets, it seeks to consider the way in which these components<br />

function jointly as ecosystems. To apply this logic it defines spatial areas, such as different vegetation habitats<br />

(forests, wetlands, agricultural land etc.) as ecosystem accounting units. In this approach soil is considered a<br />

component within a broader ecosystem rather than being considered as a distinct ecosystem.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s form an important part of the Central Framework, being recognized as an environmental asset in their<br />

own right. An important distinction is made between land and soil resources. Land is considered in terms of<br />

space and location often referred to as Ricardian land (Daly and Farley, 2011). <strong>Soil</strong> resources are the volume<br />

of biologically active topsoil, and its composition in the form of nutrients, soil water and organic matter.<br />

The accounts are structured to recognize, and distinguish between, the use of an asset (e.g. soil volume<br />

and area within the asset accounts); and the use of the soil resource or elements of the soil resource (e.g.<br />

carbon, nutrients and soil moisture in the physical flow accounts). Fundamental to the accounting process<br />

is the measurement of change for both the environmental and ecosystem accounts, which is underpinned<br />

by the availability of good quality data (Obst, Edens and Hein, 2013). The major aspects of soil of interest for<br />

the environmental accounts are: the volume of soil moved or extracted; the area of soil under different land<br />

uses; carbon, nutrient and moisture stocks; and changes in these three aspects. Hence the understanding and<br />

quantification of soil change is central to environmental accounting (Robinson, 2015).There is still no agreed<br />

set of soil indicators, although soil carbon content is widely seen as being perhaps the main indicator. There<br />

is still much work to do to synthesize soil quality work into the SEEA framework for the creation of useful,<br />

informative accounts, and to encourage countries to adopt this unified approach.<br />

8.5.3 | Assessments of the soil resource<br />

It is essential to have some form of regular reporting on the rate and extent of soil change along with the<br />

likely consequences for society at local, national and global scales. Some countries now have various forms of<br />

audits and state-of-the-environment reports. However, most countries do not produce regular assessments<br />

showing where land management systems can operate sustainably within the constraints set by changing<br />

climate, weather and soils. These are necessary given the economic and environmental significance of soil<br />

resources.<br />

Regular reporting forces policy makers to impose an operational discipline on the management of soil<br />

information. Systems for collecting and analysing data can be progressively improved and a body of knowledge<br />

will be developed over several cycles of reporting. The assessments need to adopt a highly participative mode<br />

of engagement so that all stakeholders are represented and then empowered to make the necessary changes<br />

to land management.<br />

The World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter addresses this issue directly. It encourages governments to develop a national<br />

institutional framework for monitoring implementation of sustainable soil management and overall state<br />

of soil resources. International organizations are encouraged to facilitate the compilation and dissemination<br />

of authoritative reports on the state of the global soil resources and sustainable soil management protocols.<br />

This book is a sign that progress is being made in relation to regular assessment and reporting. Further<br />

progress will depend on successful implementation of Pillar Four of the Global <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership - Enhance<br />

the quantity and quality of soil data and information – and of Pillar Five - Harmonize methods, measurements and<br />

indicators for the sustainable management and protection of soil resources.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

237


References<br />

Australian Government. 2014. The National <strong>Soil</strong> Research, Development and Extension Strategy, Securing<br />

Australia’s <strong>Soil</strong> for Profitable Industries and Healthy Landscapes. CC BY 3.0 (also available at daff.gov.au/naturalresources/soils).<br />

Beddington, J., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M., Fernández, A., Guillou, M., Jahn, M., Erda, L., Mamo, T.,<br />

Van Bo, N., Nobre, C.A., Scholes, R., Sharma, R. & Wakhungu, J. 2012. Achieving food security in the face of<br />

climate change: Final report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. Denmark,<br />

Copenhagen, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).<br />

Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T. & Koubi, V. 2012. Environmental changes and violent conflict.<br />

Research Letters, 7(1): 015601.<br />

Environmental<br />

Borlaug, N.E. 2000. Ending world hunger: the promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience<br />

zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124(2): 487-490.<br />

Bossio, D., Geheb, K. & W. Critchley. 2010. Managing water by managing land: addressing land degradation<br />

to improve water productivity and rural livelihoods. Agricultural Water Management, 97 (4): 536-542.<br />

Calbick, K.S., Day, J.C. & Gunton, T.I. 2003. Land use planning implementation: a ‘best practices’<br />

assessment. Environments 31: 69–82.<br />

CBD. 2014. Decisions of the Conference of the Parties on the ecosystem approach from decision IV/1 in 1998 to decision<br />

IX/7 in 2008. (Available at http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/decisions.shtml)<br />

Churchman, G.J. & Land, E.R. 2014. The <strong>Soil</strong> Underfoot: Infinite possibilities for a Finite Resource. CRC<br />

Press Book. 472 pp.<br />

CITMA. 2011. Proyecto Estrategia Ambiental Nacional 2011/2015. Versión 1.10. 23 de mayo 2011.<br />

Costanza, R., dArge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Oneill,<br />

R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services<br />

and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260.<br />

Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Giovannini, E., Lovins, H., McGlade, J., Pickett, K. E., Ragnarsdottir, K. V.,<br />

Roberts, D., De Vogli, R. & Wilkinson, R. 2014. Time to leave GDP behind. Nature, 505: 283-285.<br />

Daily, G. 1997. Natures services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC, Island Press.<br />

Daily, G., Matson, P. & Vitousek, P. 1997. Ecosystem services supplied by soils. In G. Daily, ed., Nature’s<br />

services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. pp 113–142. Washington, DC, Island Press.<br />

Dalal-Clayton, B. & Dent, D. 2001. Knowledge of the land: land resources information and its use in rural<br />

development. Oxford University Press.<br />

Daly, H.E. & Farley, J. 2011. Ecological economics, principles and applications. Washington, DC, Island Press.<br />

Dominati, E.J., Patterson, M. & Mackay, A. 2010. A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural<br />

capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol. Econ., 69: 1858–1868.<br />

Drechsel, P., Giordano, M. & Gyiele, L. 2004. Valuing Nutrients in <strong>Soil</strong> and Water Concepts and Techniques<br />

with Examples from IWMI Studies in the Developing World. Research Report #82. Colombo, Sri Lanka, IWMI.<br />

Drine, I. 2011. Climate Variability and Agricultural Productivity in MENA region. Working Paper No. 2011/96.<br />

December 2011.United Nations University.<br />

EC. 2006. Proposal from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social<br />

Committee and the Committee of the Regions for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a<br />

framework for the protection of soil and amending. Directive 2004/35/EC. COM (2006) 232 final. Brussels, European<br />

Commission.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

238


EC. 2013. Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General<br />

Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ Text with EEA relevance.<br />

(available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013D 1386).<br />

FAO. 1976. A framework for land evaluation. <strong>Soil</strong>s Bulletin no 32. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 1982. World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2007. The state of food and agriculture. Paying farmers for environmental services. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2011. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture- Managing systems at risk<br />

(SOLAW). Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2013. Policy Support Guidelines for the Promotion of Sustainable Production Intensification and Ecosystem<br />

Services. Vol 19. Integrated Crop Management. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO-UNESCO. 1980. FAO-UNESCO soil map of the world. Vol 1. Legend. Paris, UNESCO.<br />

Fox, J., Castella, J.C. & Ziegler, A.D. 2011. Swidden, rubber and carbon: Can REDD+ work for people and the<br />

environment in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia? Global Environmental Change, 29: 318-326.<br />

Frerks, G., Dietz, T. & van der Zaag, P. 2014. Conflict and cooperation on natural resources: Justifying the<br />

CoCooN programme. Chapter 2. In M, Bavinck, L. Pellegrini, E. Mostert, eds. Conflicts over Natural <strong>Resources</strong> in<br />

the Global South–Conceptual Approaches.Balkema, Taylor & Francis.<br />

Hellerstein, H. 2010. Challenges facing USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program. Amber Wave,s 8.<br />

Hill, M., Mondelli, M. & Carrazzone, S.E.M. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> conservation in Uruguay: soil management plans as a<br />

national policy. Regional Consultation on SAI in LAC, CGIAR Consortium – August 2014. Ministry of Africulture<br />

and Fisheries of Uruguay (MGAP).<br />

Hurni H., Giger M. & Meyer K. (eds.). 2006. <strong>Soil</strong>s on the global agenda. Developing international mechanisms<br />

for sustainable land management. Prepared with the support of an international group of specialists of the<br />

IASUS Working Group of the International Union of <strong>Soil</strong> Sciences (IUSS). Bern, Centre for Development and<br />

Environment. 64 pp.<br />

ICARDA. 2013. MENARID Gateway- Strengthening and scaling up Integrated Natural Resource Management across<br />

MENA. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas. (available at https://menarid.icarda.org/<br />

Pages/Welcome%20Page.aspx).<br />

MA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC,<br />

Island Press.<br />

Montanarella, L & Vargas, R. 2012. Global governance of soil resources as a necessary condition for<br />

sustainable development. Curr Opin Environ Sust, 4: 1–6.<br />

Mu, Z., Bu, S. & Xue, B. 2014. Environmental Legislation in China: Achievements, Challenges and Trends.<br />

Sustainability, 6(12): 8967-8979.<br />

Nefedova, T.G. 2013. Ten topical issues about rural Russia: A geographer’s viewpoint. Moscow, LENAND. [In<br />

Russian]<br />

NEPAD. 2012. New Partnership For Africa’s Development. (Available at http://www.nepad.org/about).<br />

Obst, C. & Vardon, M. 2014. Recording environmental assets in the national accounts. Oxford Review of<br />

Economic Policy, 30(1): 126-144.<br />

Obst, C., Edens, B. & Hein, L. 2013. Ecosystem services: Accounting standards. Science, 342: 420-420.<br />

Robinson, D. 2015. Moving toward data on soil change. Science, 347(6218): 140.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

239


Robinson, D.A., Fraser, I., Dominati, E.J., Davíðsdóttir, B., Jónsson, J.O.G. Jones, L., Jones, S.B., Tuller,<br />

M., Lebron, I., Bristow, K.L., Souza, D.M., Banwart S. & Clothier, B.E. 2014. On the value of soil resources<br />

in the context of natural capital and ecosystem service delivery. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America Journal, 78(3):<br />

685-700.<br />

Robinson, D.A., Jackson, B.M., Clothier, B.E., Dominati, E.J., Marchant, S.C., Cooper, D.M. & Bristow,<br />

K.L. 2013. Advances in soil ecosystem services: Concepts, models and applications for earth system life<br />

support. Vadose Zone J., 12.<br />

Robinson, D.A., Lebron, I. & Vereecken, H. 2009. On the definition of the natural capital of soils: A<br />

framework for description, evaluation, and monitoring. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 73: 1904–1911.<br />

Smaling E.M.A. 1993. The soil nutrient balance: an indicator of sustainable agriculture in sub-Saharan<br />

agriculture, pp. 18. In Proceedings of the Fertilizer Society, 340.<br />

Soares-Filho, B., Rajão, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W., Coe, M., Rodrigues, H. & Alencar, A.<br />

2014. Land Use. Cracking Brazil’s Forest Code. Science, 344(6182): 363-364.<br />

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., R. Biggs, R., Carpenter,<br />

S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan,<br />

V., Reyers, B. & Sörlin, S. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet.<br />

Science, 347(6223): 1259855.<br />

Stoorvogel, J.J., Smaling, E.M.A. & Janssen, B.H. 1993. Calculating soil nutrient balances at different scale.<br />

I. Supra-national scale. Fert. Res., 35: 227-235<br />

UN, EU, FAO, IMF, OECD, World Bank. 2014. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012. Central<br />

Framework. New York, United Nations. (Available at. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/SEEA_CF_<br />

Final_en.pdf)<br />

UN. 2012. The Future We Want: Outcome document adopted at Rio+20.<br />

(Available at http://www.uncsd 2012.org/content/ocuments/727The%20Future%20We%20Want%2019%20June%20<br />

1230pm.pdf).<br />

UNCCD. 2012. Offical webpage. (Available at http://www.unccd.int/en/regional-access/Asia/Pages/asia.aspx).<br />

UNCED. 1992. UN Conference on Environment and Development.<br />

(Available at http://www.sidsnet.org/about-sids/unced).<br />

UNEP. 1982. World <strong>Soil</strong>s Policy. Nairobi, United Nations Environmental Programme.<br />

UNEP. 2004. UNEP’s Strategy on Land Use Management and <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation. A Strengthened Functional<br />

Approach. United Nations Environment Programme Policy Series.<br />

UNEP. 2012. Global Environmental Outlook: Fifth Edition. Nairobi & New York, UNEP.<br />

(Available at: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo 5.asp (accessed February 2015).<br />

Visser, O. & Spoor, M. 2011. Land grabbing in post-Soviet Eurasia: the worlds largest agricultural land<br />

reserves at stake. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2): 299-323. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.559010.<br />

(Last accessed: March 2015).<br />

Wall, D. 2004. Sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services in soils and sediments. Washington, DC, Island<br />

Press.<br />

Westman, W.E. 1977. How much are nature’s services worth. Science, 197: 960–964.<br />

Wingqvist, G.O. & Drakenberg, O. 2010. Environmental and Climate Change Analysis. SIDA working paper.<br />

WOCAT. 2007. Where the land is greener - case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives<br />

worldwide. H.P. Liniger,& W. Critchley, eds. CDE Berne Co-published by CTA, UNEP, FAO & CDE.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

240


World Bank. 2011. Rising Global Interest in Farmland. Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits? WB.<br />

Wu, J.J. & Weber, B. 2012. Implications of a Reduced Conservation Reserve Program. In The Conservation<br />

Crossroads in Agriculture: Insight from Leading Economists. The Council on Food, Agriculture and Natural<br />

<strong>Resources</strong>, August, 2012.<br />

Youl, R., Marriott, S. & Nabben, T. 2006. Landcare in Australia: founded on local action. (available at www.<br />

agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/natural-resources/landcare/communiques/landcare_in_australiaJune 08.pdf )<br />

Young G.L. 1994. <strong>Soil</strong> conservation service. In W.P Cunningham, ed. Environmental Encyclopedia.USA, Detroit,<br />

Gale Research Inc. 774 pp.<br />

Yue, W. 2014. Almost one-fifth of our arable land is polluted. Web blog post. Chinadialogue. 17-04-2014.<br />

(Available at https://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/6921-Almost-one-fifth-of-our-arable-land-is-polluted-admit-Chineseofficials/en<br />

).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Governance and policy responses to soil change<br />

241


9 | Regional Assessment<br />

of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes in Africa South<br />

of the Sahara<br />

Regional Coordinator: Victor Chude (ITPS/Nigeria)<br />

Regional Lead Author: Ayoade Ogunkunle (Nigeria)<br />

Contributing Authors: Victor Chude (ITPS/Nigeria), Isaurinda Dos Santos (ITPS/Cape Verde), Tekalign Mamo<br />

(ITPS/Ethiopia), Garry Paterson (South Africa), Ndaye Soumare (Senegal), Liesl Wiese (South Africa), and<br />

Martin Yemefack (ITPS/Cameroon).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

242<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


9.1 | Introduction<br />

Land degradation in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is believed to be expanding at an alarming rate, accompanied<br />

by the lowest agriculture and livestock yields of any region in the world. While cereal production has increased<br />

marginally over the past two decades, more than 70 percent of this growth is due to area expansion rather<br />

than yield increases. The region also suffers from the world’s highest rate of deforestation, with some countries<br />

having lost more than 10 percent of their forest cover in the fiveyears up to 2009 (IFAD, 2009) and is most likely<br />

continuing at the same rate to this day.<br />

There is a growing and long-standing recognition among both policy-makers and soil specialists that soil<br />

degradation is one of the root causes of declining agricultural productivity in sub-Saharan Africa and that,<br />

unless the process of degradation is controlled, many parts of the continent will suffer increasingly from<br />

food insecurity (e.g. see Lal, 1990; UNEP, 1982). The consequences of allowing the productivity of Africa’s soil<br />

resources to continue on its present downward spiral will be severe, not only for the economies of individual<br />

countries, but for the welfare of the millions of rural households across the continent who are dependent on<br />

agriculture (FAO, 1999).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation is the decline in soil quality caused its improper use by humans, usually for agricultural,<br />

pastoral, industrial or urban purposes. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation may be exacerbated by climate change and<br />

encompasses physical, chemical and biological deterioration. Examples of soil degradation cited by Charman<br />

and Murphy (2005) are: loss of organic matter; decline in soil fertility; decline in structural condition; topsoil<br />

loss and erosion; adverse changes in salinity, acidity or alkalinity; and the effects of toxic chemicals, pollutants<br />

and excessive flooding.<br />

There is no consensus on the exact extent and severity of land degradation or its impacts in SSA as a whole<br />

(Reich et al., 2001; GEF, 2006). Lack of information and knowledge is considered to be one of the major<br />

obstacles for reducing land degradation, improving agricultural productivity, and facilitating the adoption of<br />

sustainable land management (SLM) among smallholder farmers (Liniger et al., 2011). The recent publication<br />

of the first <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas of Africa has provided a first comprehensive overview of the soil resources of Africa (Jones<br />

et al., 2013).<br />

Four continental-scale studies have assessed the extent of soil degradation in Africa. A literature review by<br />

Dregne (1990) of 33 countries found compelling evidence of serious land degradation in sub-regions of 13<br />

countries: Algeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tunisia,<br />

Uganda, and Zimbabwe. In another literature review, focused on drylands only, Dregne and Chou (1992)<br />

estimated that 73 percent of drylands were degraded and 51 percent severely degraded. They concluded that<br />

18 percent of irrigated lands, 61 percent of rainfed lands, and 74 percent of rangelands located in SSA drylands<br />

are degraded.<br />

The Global Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation (GLASOD) expert survey found that 65 percent of soils on<br />

agricultural lands in Africa had become degraded since the middle of the twentieth century, as had 31 percent<br />

of permanent pastures, and 19 percent of woodlands and forests (Oldeman, Hakkeling and Sombroek, 1991).<br />

Serious degradation affected 19 percent of agricultural land. A high proportion (72 percent) of degraded land<br />

was in drylands. The most widespread cause of degradation was water erosion, followed by wind erosion,<br />

chemical degradation (three-quarters from nutrient loss, the rest from salinization), and physical degradation.<br />

In terms of causes of degradation, overgrazing was responsible for half of all degradation, followed by<br />

agricultural activities, deforestation, and overexploitation.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

243<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


The Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands project (LADA) started in 2006 with the general purpose of<br />

creating the basis for informed policy advice on land degradation at global, national and local levels. This goal<br />

is being reached through the assessment of land degradation at different spatial and temporal scales in six<br />

countries and through the creation of a baseline at global level for future monitoring (FAO, 2010). Two of the<br />

six countries involved (Senegal and South Africa) are within SSA and national results are reported at the end<br />

of this chapter.<br />

Lal (1995) calculated continent-wide soil erosion rates from water using data from the mid to late 1980s, and<br />

then used these rates to compute cumulative soil erosion for 1970-90. The highest erosion rates occurred in the<br />

Maghreb region of Northwest Africa, the East African highlands, eastern Madagascar, and parts of Southern<br />

Africa. Excluding the 42.5 percent of arid lands and deserts with no measurable water erosion, Lal found that<br />

the land area affected by erosion fell into the following six classes of erosion hazard: none, 8 percent; slight, 49<br />

percent; low, 17 percent; moderate, 7 percent; high, 13 percent; and severe, 6 percent.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s host the majority of the world’s biodiversity and healthy soils are essential to securing food and fibre<br />

production. <strong>Soil</strong>s assure an adequate and clean water supply over the long term, as well as providing cultural<br />

functions. Ecosystem services provided by soils are integral to the carbon and water cycles. Major increases<br />

in agricultural production have been associated with different kinds of soil degradation, especially since<br />

the agricultural growth came in part from extensive clearing of new agricultural lands. Yet, even with this<br />

expansion, arable land per capita in Africa declined from just under 0.5 ha in 1950 to just under 0.3 ha in<br />

1990 (FAO, 1993). During this time period, yield increases on land already in production thus contributed far<br />

more to the total production. For example, more than 90 percent of the growth in developing country cereal<br />

production between 1961 and 1990 came from yield growth (World Bank, 1992). Agricultural expansion and<br />

yield growth at such a scale is inevitably associated with some degradation of soil resources. However, the<br />

type and extent of degradation vary in the different ecological/farming systems (IFPRI, 1999).<br />

9.2 | Stratification of the Region<br />

The region is diverse in terms of relief, climate, lithology, soils and agricultural systems. A combination of some<br />

of these have been used to stratify the region into agro-ecological zones (AEZs) (Fischer et al., 2002; Global<br />

HarvestChoice, 2010). Table 9.1 shows the AEZs into which the region has been grouped and some of their<br />

characteristics, while Figure 9.1 shows the distribution of the AEZs in the region.<br />

9.2.1 | Arid zone<br />

The arid zone occupies 36 percent of the land area of SSA, most of which is in West and East Africa. Rainfall<br />

is low and extremely variable in this zone. The annual rainfall of less than 500 mm, combined with high<br />

temperatures and consequent high rates of evapotranspiration, make this zone capable of sustaining plant<br />

life for less than 90 plant growth days (or length of growing season).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

244<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Figure 9.1 Agro-ecological zones in Africa South of the<br />

Sahara. Source: Otte and Chilonda, 2002.<br />

Zone<br />

Definition<br />

Rainfall<br />

range<br />

(mm)<br />

West<br />

Africa<br />

Central<br />

Africa<br />

Area (percent)<br />

East Southern<br />

Africa Africa<br />

Area<br />

of zone<br />

(percent)<br />

Arid 270 pgd 1500+ 10 59 2 7 19<br />

Highlandsb


The arid zone is mostly associated with sandy soils (Arenosols, Psamments) which are weakly differentiated<br />

and are often of aeolian origin. Water and air move freely through these soils, which are low in all nutrients.<br />

The accompanying vegetation consists of short annual grasses, legumes, scattered shrubs and trees.<br />

Mobile herds of sheep, goats, cattle and camels browse the herbage and shrubs, while farmers use most of the<br />

trees and shrubs for fuel. The low rainfall and its erratic distribution make cropping uncertain in most years.<br />

Owing to this unreliability, arable farming is mostly restricted to opportunistic cultivation of short-season<br />

millets, except in topographically favourable sites such as oases or irrigated areas. Opportunities for livestock<br />

development are limited but existing techniques could be improved upon, if not to increase productivity, then<br />

at least to sustain it.<br />

9.2.2 | Semi-arid zone<br />

The semi-arid zone receives 500 to 1000 mm of rainfall annually which can be capable of sustaining 90<br />

to 180 plant growing days. This zone occupies 18 percent of the land area of SSA. Semi-arid lands are found<br />

in all regions of SSA except central Africa. The low rainfall and the long dry season make the semi-arid zone a<br />

relatively healthy environment for humans and livestock. Arenosols (Psamments) and Cambisols (Inceptisols)<br />

are widespread and include coarse sandy soils, fine sands, and loamy sandy soils. Water retention is poor and<br />

nutrient contents, including N, P and S levels, are generally low. The permeability of the undisturbed soil is<br />

good, but algal skins contribute to the formation of surface crusts. The natural vegetation is an open low-tree<br />

grassland but this has been severely modified in many regions.<br />

The lower rainfall areas of this zone are used for grazing. Cropping and crop–livestock systems dominate the<br />

areas with higher rainfall where farmers commonly grow millet, sorghum, groundnut, maize and cowpeas.<br />

9.2.3 | Sub-humid zone<br />

The sub-humid zone occupies 22 percent of SSA, mainly in southern and central Africa. The zone receives<br />

1 000 to 1 500 mm of rain annually which can sustain plants for 180 to 270 plant growing days. Within the<br />

climatic definition, this is a very varied zone in terms of climate, soils and land use. Luvisols (Alfisols) and<br />

Cambisols (Inceptisols) occur widely, parent material is often strongly weathered, and the levels of mineral<br />

nutrients as well as the clay fraction are low. Cambisols (Inceptisols) have fewer constraints to plant production<br />

than the older, more weathered soils, since their high base status provides adequate Ca and eliminates<br />

constraints related to low pH levels. The fertility of many soils in this zone is low, especially due to leaching of<br />

NO 3<br />

–, accompanied by the loss of cations and P adsorbtion. In addition, structural stability in these soils can<br />

be poor, with crusting and hardening occurring when soils are dry.<br />

The natural vegetation is typically medium height or low woodland with understory shrubs and a ground<br />

cover of medium to tall, mainly perennial, grasses; Hyparrhenia spp. are common.<br />

Food and cash crops are grown, including cassava, yams, maize, fruits, vegetables, rice, millet, groundnut,<br />

cowpeas and cotton. From these crops, products such as cottonseed cakes and the residues of the crops are<br />

available as feed for livestock. In some areas of this zone farmers grow soybean and leguminous forage crops.<br />

The humid zone occupies 19 percent of SSA mostly in central and west Africa. The zone receives more than<br />

1 500 mm of rainfall annually which can sustain plants for 270 to 365 plant growing days. The zone is found at<br />

low latitudes north and south of the equator. <strong>Soil</strong>s in this zone include Ferralsols (Oxisols), Acrisols (Ultisols) and<br />

Luvisols (Alfisols), the last of which are commonly encountered at the forest-savannah boundary. Vegetation<br />

consists of rain forest and derived savannahs with natural vegetation dominated by tall, closed forest which<br />

may be evergreen or semi-deciduous and which is often floristically rich. The herbaceous vegetation often<br />

contains large amounts of the major nutrients.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

246<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


The soils are strongly weathered and hence have high levels of iron and aluminium oxides and low levels<br />

of phosphorous. The organic matter content is therefore generally low and the soils are fragile and easily<br />

degraded when the vegetative cover is lost. This zone has limited potential for livestock development,<br />

particularly because of the threat of the trypanosomiasis-transmitting tsetse fly.<br />

9.2.5 | Highlands zone<br />

The highland zone represents 5 percent of the land area of SSA, most of which is in eastern Africa, and half<br />

in Ethiopia. This zone occupies areas above 1 500 m altitude that have a mean daily temperature of less than<br />

20 ºC. The main highland areas in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi,<br />

western Zaire, Tanzania, Angola and Lesotho. There are also many other areas above the 1500 m contour and<br />

some of these afford tsetse-free grazing (e.g. Fouta Djallon and Bamenda). The highland areas vary in climate,<br />

topography, soils and land use.<br />

Topography varies from gently rolling hills to deeply incised valleys and steep slopes. <strong>Soil</strong>s are sometimes<br />

deep and fertile Vertisols and Nitosols, but shallow soils of inherently low fertility are widespread. In many<br />

mountain grassland areas, soils only have a very shallow surface horizon that is fertile. Undisturbed upland<br />

areas are normally stable, although some soils exhibit ‘slumping’ even where undisturbed. Cultivating the socalled<br />

‘duplex’ soils 5<br />

and soils that form a surface crust on slopes results in high run-off. Unless soil conservation<br />

measures are taken and soils are sufficiently covered with vegetation, overland flow removes large amounts<br />

of soil. The zone receives bimodal rainfall (>1000 mm annually) and there are two growing seasons. Livestock<br />

rearing is widespread: farmers grow fodder, and animal traction is of increasing importance. Population<br />

pressure is encouraging crop–livestock integration, for which the cool highlands have high potential<br />

9.3 | General soil threats in the region<br />

The various threats to soil health and ecosystem services in SSA include: (1) erosion by water or wind; (2)<br />

loss of soil organic matter; (3) soil nutrient depletion; (4) loss of soil biodiversity; (5) soil contamination; (6)<br />

soil acidification; (7) salinization and sodification; (8) waterlogging; and (9) compaction, crusting and sealing/<br />

capping (Mabogunje, 1995; Oldeman, 1991; Meadows and Hoffman, 2002; World Bank, 1997; IFPRI, 1999).<br />

9.3.1 | Erosion by water and wind<br />

About 77 percent of SSA is affected by erosion, with the most serious erosion areas in the Republic of<br />

South Africa, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Ghana, Liberia, Kenya, Zaire, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Senegal,<br />

Mauritania, Nigeria, Niger, Sudan and Somalia.<br />

According to the GLASOD results (ISRIC/UNEP, 1990), about 494 million ha of the land in SSA is affected by<br />

one form of degradation or another. Of this, 227 million ha (46 percent) is by water erosion, 187 million ha (38<br />

percent) by wind erosion, 62 million ha (12 percent) by chemical degradation and 18 million ha (4 percent) by<br />

physical degradation. The intensity of water erosion has been described as very high to extreme on about 102<br />

million ha (45 percent of the total SSA area affected), moderate on about 67 million ha (30 percent) and slight<br />

on about 58 million ha (25 percent) (Oldeman, 1991).<br />

Water erosion: This is the most widespread soil degradation type in SSA. Water erosion increases on<br />

slopes where vegetation cover is reduced due to deforestation, overgrazing or cultivation that leaves the soil<br />

surface bare. It is further aggravated where there has been a loss of soil structure or infiltration rates have<br />

been reduced. The areas particularly affected are humid and sub-humid zones. Almost 70 percent of Uganda<br />

was degraded by soil erosion and soil nutrient depletion between 1945 and 1990. More than 20 percent of<br />

agricultural land and pastures in the country have been irreversibly degraded.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

247<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Water erosion poses the greatest threat to soils in Nigeria, where it affects over 80 percent of the land<br />

(NEST, 1991). Wind, sheet, gully and beach erosion affect different parts of the country at varying intensities,<br />

but attention will focus here on the impact of erosion on agricultural land. While wind erosion is confined<br />

to the arid north, sheet erosion by water is ubiquitous throughout the country. Areas most prone to sheet<br />

erosion are where farming has cleared the original vegetation, and the soils became impoverished scrubland.<br />

Gully erosion is by far the most alarming type of erosion, particularly in the Eastern region, because it often<br />

threatens settlements and roads. Although it affects a small fraction (less than 0.1 percent) of Nigeria’s<br />

924 000 km 2 of landmass, gully erosion claims large amounts of public funds annually for remedial action.<br />

Wind erosion: Wind erosion occurs most frequently in the arid and semi-arid parts of SSA, especially in<br />

areas with sandy or loamy soils. Wind erosion leads to loss of topsoil over extended areas causing soil fertility<br />

decline. Bielders, Michels and Rajot (1985) stated that wind erosion can remove up to 80 tonnes of soil from<br />

1 ha in a givenyear. In SSA wind erosion is second in importance to water erosion, constituting 38 percent of<br />

the total erosion in the region (ISRIC/UNEP, 1990) and affecting about 186 million ha of land in the region. The<br />

intensity of wind erosion is strong on about 9 million ha (5 percent), moderate on 89 million ha (48 percent)<br />

and light on 89 million ha (48 percent) (Oldeman, 1991). Over 99 percent of wind erosion in Africa occurs in the<br />

dry land zone, with less than 1 percent affecting the humid zone.<br />

Wind erosion is a natural process that commonly occurs in deserts and on coastal sand dunes and beaches.<br />

During drought, it can also occur in agricultural regions where vegetation cover is reduced. If the climate<br />

becomes drier or windier, wind erosion is likely to increase. Climate change forecasts suggest that wind<br />

erosion will increase over the next 30 years due to more droughts and more variable climate. The combination<br />

of a changing climate and consequent increase in wind erosion will cause a series of changes affecting soils:<br />

• less rain, which will support less vegetation<br />

• lower soil moisture, which will decrease the ability of soil particles to bind together into larger, heavier<br />

aggregates<br />

• increased wind speeds, which will result in more force exerted on the ground surface and more wind<br />

erosion (if wind speed doubles, the erosion rate increases eight times)<br />

• large losses of soil and nutrients<br />

• more large dust storms, which will impact soils and the community<br />

• poorer air quality, increased respiratory health risks, and temperature and rainfall changes due to<br />

atmospheric pollution (all off-site effects).<br />

9.3.2 | Loss of soil organic matter<br />

Land degradation leads to a release of carbon to the atmosphere through oxidation of soil organic matter<br />

(Oldeman, Hakkeling and Sombroek, 1991). Africa’s current major negative role in the global carbon cycle<br />

can be attributed to the substantial releases of carbon associated with land use conversion from forest or<br />

woodlands to agriculture (Smith, 2008). In the 1990s, these releases accounted for approximately 15 percent<br />

of the global net flux of carbon from land use changes (Hooper et al., 2006). Land management following<br />

conversion also impacts carbon status, soil fertility, and agricultural sustainability – a point underlined by<br />

many including Lal (2006), Ringius (2002), Zivin and Lipper (2008) and Tieszen, Tappan and Toure (2004). <strong>Soil</strong>s<br />

often continue to lose carbon over time following land conversion (Woomer, Toure and Sall, 2004; Tschakert,<br />

Khouma and Sene, 2004; Liu et al., 2014), resulting in further reductions in crop yields and impoverishment<br />

of the farming population. However, these carbon stocks can be replenished with combinations of residue<br />

retention, manuring, nitrogen (N) fertilization, agroforestry, and conservation practices (Lal, 2006).<br />

In most sub-humid and semi-arid areas, much of the grazing land is burned annually during the dry season<br />

to remove the old and coarse vegetation and to encourage the growth of young and more nutritious grasses.<br />

Burning causes the loss of soil organic matter (released as CO 2<br />

) and thus impairs agricultural productivity.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

248<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


It exposes the soil to the erosive forces of the wind during the dry season and of the rain during the rainy<br />

season. Furthermore, the annual burn of the vegetation severely reduces the return of organic matter to the<br />

soil. This results in loss of the benefits of soil organic matter, including fertility, structure, water retention and<br />

biodiversity. The soil becomes biologically, chemically and physically poorer (FAO, 2001). Land degradation<br />

further leads to a release of carbon to the atmosphere through the oxidation of soil organic matter which<br />

results from soil disturbance and from the consequent exposure of new soil surfaces to the weather.<br />

In agricultural land, the challenge has been to produce increasing quantities of food in an economic and<br />

institutional context where the means to improve productivity in a sustainable fashion are generally not<br />

available (e.g. lack of sustainable technological packages, absence of extension, training or affordable inputs<br />

etc.). Pressures to increase output in the absence of these supporting factors has led to: (i) the rapid expansion<br />

of agricultural land (over 65 percent in the last three decades); and (ii) the shortening of the fallow periods<br />

in traditional, extensive land use systems, which reduced the rehabilitation of soil fertility through natural<br />

processes. The increased use of fire as a clearing tool has led to the further loss of nutrients in many systems.<br />

Fertilizer consumption has not increased to compensate for the loss of soil nutrients resulting from the<br />

intensification of land use. Hence, there has been widespread mining of soil organic matter and nutrients.<br />

As a consequence of this poor land management combined with the vulnerable nature of many soils, much<br />

of SSA’s cropland is now characterized by low organic matter content, often in combination with a low pH<br />

and with aluminium toxicity. On degraded soils with low organic matter, inorganic fertilizers are also easily<br />

leached, which is likely to have negative long-term effects on agricultural productivity and on the quality of<br />

downstream water resources.<br />

9.3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> nutrient depletion<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s in a large part of SSA are strongly weathered and inherently low in organic matter. Because of the<br />

increasing pressure on land, natural replenishment of nutrients during fallow periods is now insufficient<br />

to maintain soil productivity over the long-term. Insufficient nutrient replacement in agricultural systems<br />

on land with poor to moderate potential results in soil degradation. Already soil moisture stress inherently<br />

constrains land productivity on 85 percent of soils in Africa (Eswaran, Reich and Beinroth, 1997). Now soil<br />

fertility degradation places an additional serious human-induced limitation on productivity.<br />

The low nutrient status of most soils in SSA is further exacerbated by insufficient use of fertilizers and<br />

manure and by the practice of mono-cropping. Overall use of inorganic fertilizers in SSA is just 12 kg ha -1 , the<br />

lowest in the World, and soil nutrient depletion is widespread in croplands. Approximately 25 percent of soils<br />

in Africa are acidic, and therefore deficient in phosphorus (P), calcium and magnesium with often toxic levels<br />

of aluminium (McCann, 2005). Use of fertilizer in the region involves average applications of less than 9 kg of<br />

nitrogen and 6 kg of phosphorus per ha, compared with typical crop requirements of 60 kg of nitrogen and 30<br />

kg of phosphorus per ha. Recent research estimates that on average every country in SSA has a negative soil<br />

nutrient balance; in all countries studied, the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (K) added as<br />

inputs was significantly less than the amount removed as harvest or lost by erosion and leaching (Swift and<br />

Shepherd, 2007). Although many farmers have developed soil management strategies to cope with the poor<br />

quality of their soil, low inputs of nutrients, including of organic matter, contribute to poor crop growth and<br />

to the depletion of soil nutrients.<br />

Stoorvogel, Smaling and Janssen (1993) calculated nutrient balances for arable soils in 38 sub-Saharan<br />

countries and for 35 crops for 1982 -1 983 and made forecasts for 2000. Subtracting values of the output (made<br />

up of harvest, removal of residues, leaching, denitrification and erosion) from the values of the input (made<br />

up of fertilizers, manures, rain, dust, biological N-fixation and sedimentation), the study reported alarming<br />

average nutrient losses for SSA as follows: 1982 -1 983: 22 kg N, 2.5 kg P and 15 kg K; 2000: 26 kg N, 3 kg P and 19<br />

kg K. This indicated persistent nutrient mining over time (Bationo et al., 2012). Other estimations claim that<br />

each year 4 million tonnes of nutrients are harvested annually in SSA against


Sub-national studies of nutrient depletion found annual losses of 112 kg per ha of N, 2.5 kg of P, and 70 kg<br />

of K in the western Kisii highlands of Kenya. Significantly lower losses were, however, recorded in southern<br />

Mali (Smaling, 1993; Smaling, Nandwa and Janssen, 1997). Farm monitoring and modelling of nutrient cycles<br />

for the western highlands of Kenya found that more nitrogen (63 kg per ha) was being lost through leaching,<br />

nitrification, and volatilization than through removal of crop harvests (43 kg per ha). Depending on the type<br />

of farm management practice, net nitrogen balances on cropped land varied between -39 and 110 kg per ha<br />

peryear, and net phosphorus balances between -7 and 31 kg per ha per year (Shepherd and Soule, 1998).<br />

9.3.4 | Loss of soil biodiversity<br />

Loss of soil biodiversity is considered the fourth major threat in SSA. Biodiversity loss occurs in a number<br />

of ways including destruction of habitat, land use change, introduction of new species, and harvesting and<br />

hunting of individual wild species. It has been estimated that in the mid -1 980s in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), 65<br />

percent of the ‘original’ ecosystems had been converted (Perrings and Lovett, 1999). The most important factors<br />

affecting soil biodiversity are: (i) habitat fragmentation; (ii) resource availability – the amount and quality of<br />

nutrients and energy sources; (iii) temporal heterogeneity e.g. seasonal effects; (iv) spatial heterogeneity -<br />

spatial differences in the soil; (v) climate variability; and (vi) interactions within the biotic community.<br />

Habitat destruction and/or fragmentation remains the primary threat to soil biodiversity in SSA. For<br />

instance, the once great equatorial forest that stretched from western Africa into eastern Africa is now<br />

fragmented into pockets represented by Lamto forest in Ivory Coast, Mbalmayo forest in Cameroun, Congo<br />

forest in Democratic Republic Congo, Kabale, Budongo and Mabira forests in Uganda and Kakamega forest<br />

in Kenya. The surrounding communities still rely heavily on these forests for basic needs such as fuelwood,<br />

charcoal, timber, poles, and other building materials. Due to human encroachments, the forests are subject<br />

to a mosaic of different land uses. There are patches of secondary forest, fallow and arable fields amidst<br />

significant remnants of primary vegetation. In the process of conversion and change in land use, soil biota<br />

have not been spared. Studies by Okwakol (2000) and Ayuke et al. (2011) have shown that up to 50 percent of<br />

soil macrofauna species within the forest area have been lost due to habitat destruction or fragmentation.<br />

Other threats to soil biodiversity in SSA include land use and land cover change, mainly through conversion<br />

of natural ecosystems, particularly forests and grasslands, to agricultural land and urban areas. In a study<br />

conducted across different ecosystems of Eastern (Kenya), Western (Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger) and<br />

Southern Africa (Malawi), Ayuke et al. (2011) demonstrated a substantial reduction in the number of species<br />

and abundance of soil macrofauna groups such as earthworms and termites because of conversion of native<br />

or undisturbed ecosystems into arable systems. Continuous cultivation also exacerbates soil biodiversity loss<br />

because of loss of soil organic matter and hence of food resources for the soil organisms (Ayuke et al., 2011). It is<br />

likely that land clearing and deforestation will continue, further threatening genetic diversity as more species<br />

are lost (IAASTD, 2009). Sub-Saharan Africa suffers the world’s highest annual deforestation rate because of<br />

overexploitation of forest resources and conversion of forested land to agriculture. Although deforestation<br />

occurs throughout the continent, particularly affected areas are the moist forests of Western Africa and the<br />

highland forests of the Horn of Africa (FAO, 2007; Hansen et al., 2013).<br />

Mulugeta (2004) reported that in Ethiopia deforestation and subsequent cultivation of the tropical dry<br />

Afromontane forest soils endangered the native forest biodiversity not only through the outright loss of<br />

habitat but also by impairing the soil seed banks. The results showed that the contribution of woody species<br />

to the soil seed bank declined from 5.7 percent after sevenyears to nil after 53 years of continuous cultivation.<br />

However, soil quality and native flora degradation are reversible through reforestation. In fact, reforestation<br />

of abandoned farm fields with fast-growing tree species was shown to restore soil quality. Tree plantations<br />

established on degraded sites also fostered the recolonization of diverse native forest flora under their<br />

canopies. An important result from studying the effects of reforestation is that good silviculture, particularly<br />

selection of appropriate tree species, can significantly affect the rate and magnitude of restoration processes<br />

for both soil quality and biodiversity.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

250<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


In many African cultures, harvesting of soil fauna groups such as the termite alates and queens, chafer<br />

grubs for food, and the use of earthworms as bait by fishermen can also be a threat to soil biodiversity, and<br />

may in the long run contribute to substantial loss of many species of soil fauna.<br />

Harsh climatic conditions and/or climate change may also contribute to changes in soil biodiversity in SSA.<br />

For example, a more than average numbers of earthworm and termite taxa are found under relatively warmer,<br />

drier conditions (Ayuke et al., 2011). This is contrary to the observation that earthworm and termite diversity<br />

increases with increases in rainfall or soil moisture, as generally found in temperate climates (Bohlen et al.,<br />

1995; Curry, 2004). However, seasonality of rainfall in the tropical regions means rainfall amounts per season<br />

may be more important than the annual total. Lower taxonomic richness among sites in Eastern Africa may be<br />

attributable to less favourable conditions arising from high rainfall and low temperatures at higher altitudes<br />

(Ayuke et al., 2011).<br />

Intense management practices that include application of pesticides and frequent cultivation affect soil<br />

organisms, often altering community composition of soil fauna. <strong>Soil</strong> biological and physical properties (e.g.,<br />

temperature, pH, and water-holding characteristics) and microhabitat are altered when natural habitat is<br />

converted for agricultural production (Crossley, Mueller and Perdue, 1992). Changes in these soil properties<br />

may be reflected in the distribution and diversity of soil meso fauna. Organisms adapted to high levels of<br />

physical disturbance become dominant within agricultural communities, thereby reducing the richness and<br />

diversity of soil fauna (Paoletti, Foissner and Coleman, 1993).<br />

The extent of soil sterilization and loss of soil biodiversity in SSA has yet to be quantified on a large-scale<br />

across the region. However, it is clear that unsustainable soil management practices have depleted soil<br />

organic matter, promoted soil degradation and may have caused soil fauna and flora imbalances. This land<br />

degradation will continue unless land users in SSA adopt an agro-biological approach to managing their soils<br />

(Van der Merwe et al., 2002).<br />

9.3.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination and pollution<br />

Chemical fertilizers and pesticides have had negative effects on the environment in most SSA countries.<br />

However, soil pollution through agrochemical use in SSA has been of less concern compared to other regions of<br />

the world, mainly because of the low levels of application. However, with the increasing push towards higher<br />

use of fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide to boost productivity, efforts will be needed to reduce the associated<br />

negative impacts on soil quality (IAASTD, 2009).<br />

Chemical pollution has emerged as a threat to soil quality. According to a United Nations Environment<br />

Programme (UNEP, 2007) environmental assessment in ten communities in Ogoni land in southeastern<br />

Nigeria which had been affected by crude oil spills, drinking water, the air and agricultural soils contained<br />

over 900 times the permissible levels of hydrocarbon and heavy metals. The report acknowledged that, even<br />

if all its recommendations were implemented, recovery might take 30 years. Other published research work<br />

suggests that heavy metal pollution is occurring across SSA. Heavy metal (Pb, Cd, Hg, Cu, Co, Zn, Cr, Ni, As)<br />

pollution of soils has been reported in Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and Angola (Fakayode and Onianwa, 2002;<br />

UNEP, 2007; Odai et al, 2008).<br />

Change of land use, particularly urbanization, is another factor in soil contamination. National data from<br />

South Africa indicate that areas under urban, forestry and mining land uses have all increased over the last<br />

decade, whereas the cultivated area has decreased. The urban area has increased from 0.8 percent of total<br />

area to 2 percent, forestry from 1.2 percent to 1.6 percent, and mining from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent, while<br />

the cultivated area has decreased from 12.4 percent to 11.9 percent. The increase in the urban and mining areas<br />

is a major concern in terms of soil conservation and future use. Urban development involves soil sealing which<br />

irreversibly removes soils from other land uses. Mining results in serious chemical and physical soil degradation<br />

which subsequently can only be partially restored.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

251<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


9.3.6 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification<br />

In SSA, extremely acid soils, mainly potential or actual acid sulphate soils, occur only in a small area around<br />

the Niger delta and sporadically along the coastal plains of West Africa. Other acid soils occupy about 15<br />

percent of the continent and are mainly found in the moist parts of the semi-arid zones and in sub-humid<br />

areas. Many of the Acrisols (Ultisols) and some Lixisols (Alfisols) have acid surface and subsurface horizons<br />

which, coupled with the moisture stress conditions, makes these soils extremely difficult to manage under<br />

low-input conditions. In West Africa, the annual additions of dust from the Sahara brought by the Harmattan<br />

winds raise the pH of the surface horizons. The problem is therefore less acute there, although subsoil acidity<br />

remains (Eswaran et al., 1996). Another region of acid soils occurs south of the tropic of Capricorn and includes<br />

parts of South Africa (Beukes, Stronkhorst and Jezile, 2008a,b) where it poses a serious soil chemical problem<br />

and is in fact one of the greatest production-limiting factors.<br />

9.3.7 | Salinization and sodification<br />

Salinization is defined as a change in the salinity status of the soil. This can be caused by improper<br />

management of irrigation schemes, particularly in the arid and semi-arid regions. Irrigation-induced soil acidity<br />

is aggravated when irrigation is practiced on soils unsuitable for irrigation (Barnard et al., 2002). Salinization<br />

can also be caused if sea water intrudes into coastal regions either on the surface or into groundwater. It may<br />

also arise in closed basins when there is excessive abstraction of groundwater from aquifers of different salt<br />

content. Salinization also takes place where human activities lead to increased evapotranspiration from soils<br />

on salt-containing parent material or where saline ground water is being pumped out (Oldeman, 2002).<br />

In the arid and semi-arid parts of Africa, soil salinity and alkalinity are major problems affecting about 24<br />

percent of the continent. <strong>Soil</strong>s with pH>8.5 are designated as alkaline (Eswaran et al., 1996). <strong>Soil</strong> salinity and<br />

sodicity problems are common in arid and semi-arid regions where rainfall is insufficient to leach salts and<br />

excess sodium ions out of the rhizosphere. More than 80 million ha of such soils are found in Africa.<br />

Increasing temperatures may result in high evaporative demands that may activate the capillary rise of<br />

salts, leading to soil salinization. The results of a study in Sudan showed a significant increase in salinity in<br />

the Dongla area in the north, where the annual rainfall is the lowest in the country. This increase is associated<br />

with fluctuation and erratic distribution of rainfall, as well as with a rise in temperature (Abdalla et al., 2011).<br />

9.3.8 | Waterlogging<br />

Human intervention in natural drainage systems may lead to waterlogging or flooding by river water. Most<br />

waterlogging threats are due to effects of human-induced hydromorphy. Causes include a rising water table<br />

(for example, due to construction of reservoirs or irrigation) or increased flooding caused by higher peak flows<br />

of rivers. The technology of flooding in paddy fields to provide a proper environment for paddy rice is generally<br />

not considered a threat to ecosystem services, although it may increase the emissions of GHG. It is estimated<br />

(Oldeman, Hakkeling and Sombroek, 1991) that waterlogging constitutes 1.5 percent of the non-erosion soil<br />

degradation threats in Africa.<br />

9.3.9 | Compaction, crusting and sealing<br />

The population of the Sub-Saharan Africa (830 millions) is approximately 12 percent of the world population.<br />

SSA population has been growing at a rate of 2.6 percent year during the last decade, although the rate is now<br />

declining. The tendency in the region is towards the concentration of growing populations in moderately large<br />

cities (rather than mega-cities). Since the early 1970s, several SSA countries have experienced accelerated urban<br />

expansion, recording some of the highest urban growth rates in the world of up to 5 percent per year (Todaro,<br />

2000). There are numerous examples of single-city dominance in the region. For instance, in Mozambique,<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

252<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Maputo accounts for 83 percent of the country’s urban population, while the figures for Dakar, Lome, Kampala<br />

and Harare are 65, 60, 52 and 50 percent respectively (World Bank, 2002). Nigeria and South Africa represent<br />

exceptions to this single-city dominance, as they have several large and well distributed urban centres. South<br />

Africa and Nigeria are also the countries recording the highest amount of impervious surface area (ISA) in<br />

the region, and they have high Urbanization Indexes (the ratio between the total area of the country and the<br />

urbanized area) (Figure 9.2).<br />

9.4 | The most important soil threats in Sub-Saharan Africa<br />

Of the threats to soils and related ecosystem functions in SSA listed in Section 9.3, the most critical are soil<br />

erosion, loss of soil organic matter and soil nutrient depletion (UNEP, 2013). Loss of soil biodiversity is also a<br />

significant threat in SSA. These four threats are interrelated. More is known about the first three and these are<br />

discussed in greater detail in this section.<br />

10<br />

8<br />

Urban Area (SQKM)<br />

Urbanization index (%)<br />

1,2<br />

1<br />

Urban Area (thousands SQKM)<br />

6<br />

4<br />

0,8<br />

0,6<br />

0,4<br />

2<br />

0,2<br />

0<br />

0<br />

South Africa<br />

Nigeria<br />

Sudan<br />

Democratic Republic of the Congo<br />

Morocco<br />

Cote d'Ivoire<br />

Ghana<br />

Mozambique<br />

United Republic of Tanzania<br />

Ethiopia<br />

Cameroon<br />

Zambia<br />

Angola<br />

Niger<br />

Kenya<br />

Senegal<br />

Zimbabwe<br />

Uganda<br />

Mali<br />

Republic of the Congo<br />

Benin<br />

Botswana<br />

Burkina Faso<br />

Namibia<br />

Gabon<br />

Madagascar<br />

Chad<br />

Central African Republic<br />

Togo<br />

Somalia<br />

Sierra Leone<br />

Mauritania<br />

Liberia<br />

Rwanda<br />

Malawi<br />

The Gambia<br />

Eritrea<br />

Lesotho<br />

Burundi<br />

Guinea-Bissau<br />

Swaziland<br />

Equatorial Guinea<br />

Mauritius<br />

Djibouti<br />

Reunion<br />

Urbanization index (%)<br />

Figure 9.2 Extent of urban areas and Urbanization Indexes for the Sub-Saharan African countries. Source: Schneider, Friedl and<br />

Potere, 2010.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

253<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


9.4.1 | Erosion by water and wind<br />

Direct causes of soil erosion<br />

Expansion of land for agriculture: <strong>Soil</strong> erosion can be a natural process but it is also often caused or<br />

accelerated by human activities that involve inappropriate land use. As discussed above (Section 9.3), much<br />

of the change in land use practices in SSA has been driven by the need to increase production and incomes<br />

in an economic and institutional context where the means to improve productivity in a sustainable fashion<br />

are generally not available. The processes involved - rapid expansion of agricultural land, shortening of fallow<br />

periods, increased use of fire – are discussed in full in Section 9.3.2 above.<br />

As fertilizer consumption did not increase to compensate for the loss of soil nutrients resulting from the<br />

intensification of land use, there has been widespread mining of soil nutrients and soil organic matter. As a<br />

consequence of the type of soils that occur in the region and because of generally poor land management,<br />

many SSA croplands now have low soil organic matter contents and soils that have a low pH and suffer from<br />

aluminium toxicity. On degraded soils with low organic matter, inorganic fertilizers are also easily leached, and<br />

this process has devastating long-term effects for agricultural productivity. Alternative means of maintaining<br />

soil fertility, such as crop rotation with biological nitrogen fixing (BNF) species, application of green manure,<br />

agroforestry, composting, rock phosphates, etc., have proved to be highly effective at the local scale. However,<br />

these technologies have not been applied widely enough to have an impact at a national let alone continental<br />

scale.<br />

Overgrazing: There has been much debate on the impacts in SSA of high grazing pressures on vegetation<br />

composition in rangelands. The current understanding is that continued high grazing pressure may affect<br />

rangeland productivity, particularly in the long term. Vegetation studies also show that high grazing pressures<br />

lead to changes in species composition, which may reduce the resilience of rangelands to drought (Hein and<br />

De Ridder, 2006). During a drought, degraded rangelands show a much stronger decline in productivity<br />

than non-degraded rangelands. Recentyears have seen droughts with severe impacts on livestock and local<br />

livelihoods in parts of Niger and in the East African drylands (Uganda and Kenya).<br />

Deforestation: Most forests and woodlands in SSA are experiencing rapid rates of deforestation.<br />

Deforestation is driven by a number of processes, in particular: (i) the continued demand for agricultural land;<br />

(ii) local use of wood for fuel, charcoal production and construction purposes; (iii) large-scale timber logging,<br />

often without effective institutional control of harvest rates and logging methods; and (iv) population<br />

movements and resettlement schemes in forested areas. The amount of cropped land in SSA has increased by<br />

about 40 million ha in 30 years (1975-2005), most of it at the expense of forests and woodlands (FAO, 2015).<br />

Further expansion of cropland would be at the expense of forests or rangeland.<br />

Socio-economic causes of soil erosion<br />

Population expansion: Behind these direct drivers of erosion lies the demographic driver of a continuously<br />

growing population (Figure 9.3). The rate of SSA population growth has moderated in recentyears and is<br />

currently 2.1 percent per year. Nonetheless, in the next 15 years SSA will have to accommodate at least 250<br />

million additional people, a 33 percent increase (UNDP, 2005). With the increase in population comes an<br />

increased demand for living space and food which will directly affect soil use in the region.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

254<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Poverty: General poverty of the farming population and the low potential of the farming systems<br />

characteristic of SSA pose considerable challenges to sustainable agricultural growth and poverty reduction.<br />

Poverty is particularly prevalent in the pastoral/agro-pastoral, highland perennial and forest based farming<br />

systems which constitute one-third of the total SSA production systems (FAO and World Bank, 2001). From<br />

Figure 9.4 it is clear that SSA has many countries where a large percentage of the population is living below<br />

the poverty line.<br />

Figure 9.3: The fertility rate (the number of children a woman is expected to bear during her lifetime) for 1970 and 2005. Source:<br />

Fooddesert.org<br />

Climate Change: Climate change is predicted to affect SSA agro-ecosystems on a significant scale in the<br />

coming decades. The continent has a long history of rainfall fluctuations of varying lengths and intensities.<br />

Severe droughts affected East and West Africa alike during the 1910s. Drought episodes were generally followed<br />

by increasing rainfall levels, but negative trends were observed again from the 1950 onwards, culminating in<br />

the droughts of the early 1970s and mid -1 980s. These droughts had an impact on the susceptibility of soils to<br />

erosion.<br />

Legend<br />

Population (%)<br />

3 - 14<br />

14 - 26<br />

26 - 37<br />

37 - 48<br />

48 - 57<br />

57 - 66<br />

66 - 75<br />

75 - 84<br />

Figure 9.4 Percentage of population living below the poverty line. Source: CIA World Factbook, 2012.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

255<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Water erosion: its extent and distribution in the region<br />

Water erosion constitutes 46 percent of the land degradation types in SSA, and wind erosion accounts for<br />

a further 38 percent (FAO, 2005). The most recent continent-wide assessment shows that 494 million ha, or<br />

22 percent of the agricultural land (including rangelands) in Africa, are affected by water erosion (Oldeman,<br />

Hakkeling and Sombroek, 1991). The assessment confirms common field observations that overgrazing is the<br />

main cause of soil erosion, followed by inappropriate cultivation techniques on arable land. In this context<br />

it is important to note that the number of cattle in Africa almost doubled in the period 1961 -1 994, while the<br />

area of grazing lands hardly increased (FAO, 2015). For the future, the expected intensification of use on<br />

currently cultivated lands, expansion of cultivation into more marginal areas, reduction in grazing lands and<br />

the increasing numbers of livestock are likely to increase vulnerability to erosion.<br />

As discussed above (9.3.1), severely eroded areas in Africa can be found in South Africa, Sierra Leone, Guinea,<br />

Ghana, Liberia, Kenya, Nigeria, Zaire, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Senegal, Mauritania, Niger, Sudan<br />

and Somalia. More than 20 percent of SSA’s agricultural land and pasture has been irreversibly degraded,<br />

mainly by soil erosion (UNSO/SEED/BDP, 1999).<br />

Erosion has assumed a serious dimension in Nigeria, affecting every part of the country. In the eastern part<br />

of the country, erosion has ravaged wide areas. Active and inactive gullies have formed with surface areas<br />

ranging from 0.7 km 2 in Ohafia to 1.15 km 2 in Abiriba in Abia State. The width of the gullies ranges between 0.4<br />

km in Ohafia and 2.4 km in Abiriba. A gully with a depth of 120 m has been recorded at Abiriba (Ofomata, 1985).<br />

In addition, agricultural practices have contributed to the problems of widespread sheet erosion. Erosion is<br />

thus exerting major pressure on soil resources with far-reaching consequences for both the population and<br />

the environment (Jimoh, 2000). In the northern areas of Nigeria, erosion is equally serious, especially in<br />

places like Shendam and Western Pankshin in Plateau State, as well as at Ankpa and Okene in Kogi State.<br />

Gully erosion is also prominent in Efon-Alaaye, Ekiti State in the western part of the country (Adeniran, 1993).<br />

The areas of Nigeria most affected by erosion are the Agulu and Nanka districts of the eastern part of<br />

Nigeria, and the Shendam and western Pankshin areas of Plateau State, Nigeria (Udo, 1970; Okigbo, 1977).<br />

Elsewhere, the Imo State government has estimated that about 120 000 km 2 of land has been devastated<br />

by gully erosion. As a result, eight villages have been destroyed and 30 000 people needed to be resettled.<br />

Erosion damage in Imo and Anambra states was estimated to cause the loss of over 20 tonnes of fertile soil per<br />

annum, at an economic cost of over 300 million naira per annum. Gullies extended to depths of over 120 m and<br />

widths up to 2 km wide (Adeleke and Leong, 1980). In 1994, about 5 000 people were rendered homeless due<br />

to erosion in Katsina State, Nigeria. Properties worth over 400 million naira were destroyed and many lives<br />

lost. Other areas affected by erosion include Auchi in Edo State, Efon Alaye in Ondo State, Ankpa and Okene in<br />

Kogi State, and Gombe in Bauchi State. In many areas, erosion has resulted in a physical loss of available land<br />

for cultivation. For example, about 1 000 ha of cultivable land has been lost to erosion at the Agulu-Nanka<br />

area of Nigeria. Thus the loss of homes and crops, disruption of communication routes, financial losses and<br />

attendant hydrological problems can all stem from erosion problems.<br />

Nearly 90 percent of rangelands and 80 percent of farmlands in the West African Sahel, Sudan, and<br />

northeast Ethiopia are seriously affected by land degradation, including soil erosion. More than 25 percent<br />

of South Africa is seriously degraded by erosion. Almost 70 percent of Uganda’s territory was degraded by soil<br />

erosion and soil nutrient depletion between 1945 and 1990. Across SSA, more than 20 percent of agricultural<br />

land and pastures has been irreversibly degraded, affecting more than 65 percent of Africa’s population (Global<br />

HarvestChoice, 2011).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

256<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Considering that over 80 percent of South Africa’s land surface is covered by natural vegetation, the<br />

estimated annual soil loss of 2.5 tonnes soil per ha is excessive. These rates of soil loss far exceed tolerance<br />

levels and are almost ten times the estimated rate of soil formation, which has been estimated at 0.31 tonnes<br />

ha -1 yr -1 in the case of a 1 m thick solum of a tropical soil (Van der Merwe, 1995; see Section 6.1). <strong>Soil</strong> organic<br />

matter (SOM) plays a major role in ensuring soil stability. There is a general decline in SOM in South African<br />

soils. An estimated 20 percent of the country’s total surface area is potentially highly erodible. Bearing in mind<br />

the country’s geology, rainfall and topographic characteristics in addition to declining SOM, soil erosion is<br />

likely to stay a dominant soil degradation process.<br />

Sediment movement by erosion contributes significantly to shifts in soil fertility. Sediment movement is<br />

widespread in South Africa as reflected by the annual losses of 3 300 tonnes N, 26 400 tonnes P and 363 000<br />

tonnes K estimated by Du Plessis in 1986 (Van der Merwe, 1995). Periodic floods transport massive amounts of<br />

sediment and nutrients within catchments. The Demoina flood in 1984, for instance, deposited as much as 34<br />

million tonnes of sediment in the Mfolozi flats (Scotney and Dijkhuis, 1990). One 1985 study used a siltation<br />

approach to estimate the siltation load carried by the Tugela River, finding soil loss from the catchment area<br />

as high as 4.4 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 (De Villiers et al., 2002). It has been estimated that water erosion affects 6.1<br />

million ha of cultivated soils in South Africa. Of this area, 15 percent of soils are seriously affected, 37 percent<br />

moderately affected, and the rest slightly affected.<br />

Wind erosion in the region<br />

Wind erosion physically removes the lighter, less dense soil constituents such as organic matter, clays and<br />

silts, thus removing the most fertile part of the soil and lowering soil productivity (Lyles, 1975). In SSA, soil<br />

erosion by wind occurs mainly in the arid and semiarid regions. The occurrence of wind erosion at any one site<br />

is a function of weather events interacting with soil and land management through the effects of weather<br />

on soil structure, tilth and vegetation cover. At the southern fringe of the Sahara Desert, a special dry and<br />

hot wind, locally termed Harmattan, occurs. These North-easterly or Easterly winds normally blow in the dry<br />

winter season under a high atmospheric pressure system. When the wind force of Harmattan is beyond the<br />

threshold value, sand particles and dust particles will be blown away from the land surface and transported<br />

for several hundreds of kilometres across the land and as far as the Atlantic Ocean (WMO, 2005). Areas in SSA<br />

most susceptible to wind erosion are the southern fringe areas of the Sahara, Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe,<br />

Tanzania and South Africa (Favis-Mortlock, 2005).<br />

It is estimated that 25 percent of South Africa is affected by wind erosion (Laker, 2005), amounting to an<br />

estimated 10.9 million ha. Of this area, 7 percent is seriously affected, 29 percent moderately and 64 percent<br />

slightly (Barnard et al., 2002). Wind erosion is particularly evident on drift sands in the coastal areas, but also<br />

on cultivated land in the Highveld areas. The seriousness of wind erosion can be deduced from the situation in<br />

the Eastern Cape Province where there are over 14 000 ha of drift sand (Barnard et al., 2002). Most of South<br />

Africa’s prime agricultural soils in the relatively arid western part of the country are wind-blown sand deposits<br />

(De Villiers et al., 2002).<br />

Wind erosion may cause off-site effects, such as the covering of the terrain with wind-borne soil particles<br />

from distant sources. It is estimated that more than 100 million tonnes of dust per annum are blown westward<br />

from the African continent across the Atlantic. The amount of dust arising from the Sahel zone has been<br />

reported to be around or above 270 million tonnes per year which corresponds to a loss of 30 mm per m 2<br />

per<br />

year or a layer of 20 mm of soil particles over the entire area (WMO, 2005).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

257<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


9.4.2 | Loss of soil organic matter<br />

The loss of vegetative cover and decline in the level of soil organic matter (SOM) are the root cause of<br />

most soil degradation, since all the physical, chemical and biological problems follow a drop in SOM content.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic matter is a key component of any terrestrial ecosystem, and any variation in its abundance and<br />

composition has important effects on many of the processes that occur within the system. The amount<br />

of organic matter and size of soil carbon stock results from an equilibrium between the inputs into the<br />

system, which are mostly from biomass detritus, and outputs from the system, largely decomposition and<br />

volatilization. These processes are driven by various parameters of natural or human origins (Schlesinger<br />

and Winkler, 2000; Amundson, 2001; Section 2.1). A decrease of organic matter in topsoil can have dramatic<br />

negative effects on the water holding capacity of the soil, on the soil structure stability and compactness,<br />

on nutrient storage and supply, and on soil biological components such as mycorrhizas and nitrogen-fixing<br />

bacteria (Sombroek, Nachtergaele and Hebel, 1993).<br />

Direct causes of SOM decline<br />

Apart from climatic factors that influence carbon changes in the soil, inappropriate land uses and practices<br />

are the main cause of decline in SOM. These uses and practices include: monoculture cereal production;<br />

intensive tillage; short to no fallow; and reduction or absence of crop rotation systems. The long-term effects<br />

of these management actions are now being experienced across SSA.<br />

The SSA experience is not unique. Across the globe, the carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems is being<br />

changed markedly by the direct impact of human activities. Land use change was responsible for 20 percent<br />

of global anthropogenic CO 2<br />

emissions during the 1990s (IPCC, 2007). In SSA, land use change is the primary<br />

source, much of it through burning of forests.<br />

The impact of land use change varies according to the land use types. The clearing of forests or woodlands<br />

and their conversion into farmland in tropical SSA reduces the soil carbon content mainly through reduced<br />

production of organic inputs, increased erosion rates and the accelerated decomposition of soil organic matter<br />

by oxidation. Various reviews agree that the loss amounts to 20 to 50 percent of the original carbon in the<br />

topsoil, with deeper layers less affected, if at all (Sombroek, Nachtergaele and Hebel, 1993; Murty et al., 2002;<br />

Guo and Gifford, 2002). However, conversion of forests to pasture does not necessarily change soil carbon<br />

(Guo and Gifford, 2002) and may actually increase the soil organic matter content (Sombroek, Nachtergaele<br />

and Hebel, 1993). Where shifting cultivation is practiced, soil carbon has been found to reduce to half the level<br />

before the land was cleared for use (Detwiler, 1986). Surprisingly, studies suggest that commercial logging and<br />

tree harvesting do not result in long-term decreases in soil organic matter (Knoepp and Swank, 1997; Houghton<br />

et al., 2001; Yanai et al., 2003). Clearly many factors are at play: changes in the amount of soil organic matter<br />

following conversion of natural forests to other land uses depend on several factors such as the type of forest<br />

ecosystem undergoing change (Rhoades, Eckert and Coleman, 2000), the post conversion land management<br />

practiced, the climate (Pastor and Post, 1986) and the soil type and texture (Schjønning et al., 1999).<br />

Socio-economic causes of SOM decline<br />

In Sub-Saharan Africa, socio-economic pressures to increase production and incomes create incentives for<br />

farmers to reduce the length of fallow periods, cultivate continuously, overgraze fields, or remove much of<br />

the above-ground biomass for fuel, animal fodder and building materials. These practices can result in the<br />

reduction of SOM, water holding capacity and nutrients. They also increase the soil’s vulnerability to erosion<br />

(Lal, 2004).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

258<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Extent of SOM decline in the region<br />

As with negative nutrient balances (see below, 9.4.3), SOM decline threatens soil productivity. In SSA, the<br />

concentration of organic carbon in the top soil is reported to average 12 mg kg -1 for the humid zone, 7 mg kg -1<br />

for the sub-humid zone and 4 mg kg -1 or less in the semi-arid zone (Williams et al., 1993). These inherently low<br />

concentrations of soil organic carbon are due not only to the low root growth of crops and natural vegetation<br />

but also to the rapid turnover rates of organic materials caused by high soil temperature associated with<br />

abundant micro-fauna, particularly termites (Bationo et al. 2003). There is considerable evidence for rapid<br />

decline in SSA of soil organic C levels where cultivation of crops is continuous (Bationo et al., 1995). For sandy<br />

soils, average annual losses in soil organic C may be as high as 5 percent, whereas for sandy loam soils reported<br />

losses are much lower, averaging 2 percent (Pieri, 1989). Results from long-term soil fertility trials indicate that<br />

losses of up to 0.69 tonnes carbon ha -1 yr -1 in the soil surface layers are common in Africa, even with high levels<br />

of organic inputs (Nandwa, 2003; Bationo et al., 2012).<br />

Responses to SOM decline<br />

Appropriate land management could reverse the trend of SOM decline and contribute to soil carbon<br />

sequestration. In fact, increasing the SOM content is crucial for future African agriculture and food production<br />

(Bationo et al., 2007; Sanchez, 2000). Several studies on SSA have shown that a synergetic effect exists<br />

between mineral fertilizers and organic amendments and that this synergy leads to both higher yields and<br />

higher SOC content (Palm et al., 2001, Vågen et al., 2005; Bationo et al., 2007).<br />

Barnard et al. (2002) emphasized the importance of establishing and maintaining an effective and intimate<br />

association between soils and growing plants. Biological measures for stabilizing slopes and decreasing the<br />

rate of runoff are essential. It is often necessary to undertake some form of land shaping prior to this, together<br />

with chemical amelioration and nutrient augmentation.<br />

There is abundant evidence that soil organic matter plays a major role in stabilizing soil and in preventing its<br />

physical, chemical and biological deterioration. This has been demonstrated under South African conditions<br />

by several scientists as reported by Barnard et al. (2002). For example, Folscher (1984) pointed out that microorganisms<br />

played a vital role in the chemo-biological condition of soils. Under predominantly heterotrophic<br />

microbial activity, physical and chemical stability could be expected, while under autotrophic microbial<br />

activity, acidification and nutrient decline could be forecast. Much more attention therefore needs to be paid<br />

to the dynamic nature of soil and its physical, chemical and biological interactions.<br />

Because nitrogen dynamics are so important in establishing a stable C:N ratio in soil, alternative sources of<br />

natural forms of nitrogen such as suitable legumes should be included in rotations. Rhizobial and mycorrhizal<br />

associations need to be stimulated and soil organic carbon and nutrient levels need to be systematically<br />

monitored and evaluated. Other soil quality indicators relating to specific situations need to be developed<br />

and utilized, with emphasis on earthworm populations as an indicator of soil quality. Reduced, minimum and<br />

no-till systems also need to be investigated and implemented where possible. These have been introduced<br />

worldwide and are being adopted in many parts of South Africa (Van der Merwe et al., 2000).<br />

Land degradation leads to a release of carbon to the atmosphere through oxidation of soil organic matter.<br />

With present concerns about climate change and the increase in atmospheric CO 2<br />

, it has been suggested that<br />

this process could be reversed and that the soil could be used to capture and store carbon. <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter<br />

could be gradually built up again through carbon sequestration. Among the land use changes which could be<br />

promoted with this objective in mind are improved agricultural practices, the introduction of agroforestry, and<br />

reclamation of degraded land. By such means, the carbon stored in soils could be substantially increased by<br />

amounts of the order of 30–50 tonnes ha -1 . Thus land use changes which are beneficial to local communities<br />

would, in addition, fulfil a global environmental objective.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

259<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


9.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> nutrient depletion<br />

Nearly 3.3 percent of agricultural gross domestic product (Agricultural GDP) in Sub-Saharan Africa is lost<br />

annually due to soil and nutrient losses (Global HarvestChoice, 2011). In Africa, harvesting grains and crop<br />

residues from the land removes considerable quantities of soil carbon content. As lost nutrients in SSA are only<br />

very partially replaced with fertilizers, these losses contribute to negative nutrient balances (Gray, 2005). As<br />

a result, soil fertility decline has been described as the single most important constraint on food production<br />

and food security in SSA. <strong>Soil</strong> fertility decline (also described as soil productivity decline) is a deterioration<br />

of chemical, physical and biological soil properties. Besides soil erosion, the main processes contributing to<br />

nutrient depletion in SSA are:<br />

• Decline in organic matter and soil biological activity<br />

• Degradation of soil structure and loss of other soil physical qualities<br />

• Reduction in availability of major nutrients (N, P, K) and micro-nutrients<br />

• Increase in toxicity, due to acidification or pollution<br />

In the first assessment of the state of nutrient depletion in SSA, which was carried out in 1990, nutrient<br />

balances were calculated for the arable lands of 38 countries across the continent. Four classes of nutrient-loss<br />

rates were established (Table 9.2). As discussed above (9.3.3), the average nutrient loss in 1990 was estimated<br />

to be 24 kg nutrients ha -1 per year (10 kg N; 4 kg P 2<br />

O 5<br />

, 10 kg K 2<br />

O). Countries with the highest depletion rates,<br />

such as Kenya and Ethiopia (Table 9.3), also have severe soil erosion.<br />

Class Low Moderate High Very High<br />

N 40<br />

P 2<br />

O 5<br />

15<br />

K 2<br />

O 40<br />

Table 9.2 Classes of nutrient loss rate (kg ha -1 yr -1 ). Source: Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990.<br />

Direct causes of nutrient decline<br />

Fertility decline is caused by a negative balance between output (harvesting, burning, leaching, and so<br />

on) and input of nutrients and organic matter (manure/fertilizers, returned crop residues, mineral deposition<br />

through flooding). The estimate of nutrient depletion in SSA cited above is worrying. However, some scientists<br />

(Roy et al., 2003) have expressed concern about the approach used, as it is based on approximation and<br />

aggregation at country level which could be misleading, masking the ‘bright’ spots and the ‘hot’ spots where<br />

urgent nutrient replenishment is required. Assessment of fertility decline at micro-watershed or community<br />

level would be more appropriate.<br />

Socio-economic causes of nutrient decline<br />

There are various factors that indirectly influence nutrient depletion in SSA and they vary between<br />

ecological regions and amongst countries and locations within a given ecological region. The cost of buying<br />

mineral fertilizer can put it beyond the reach of many SSA smallholders (World Bank, 1998). Farm-level<br />

fertilizer prices in Africa are among the highest in the world (Bationo et al. 2012). One metric tonne of urea, for<br />

example, costs about US$ 90 in Europe, US$ 500 in Western Kenya and US$ 700 in Malawi. These high prices<br />

can be attributed to the removal of subsidies, high transaction costs, poor infrastructure, and poor market<br />

development, inadequate access to foreign exchange and credit facilities, transportation costs and lack of<br />

training to promote and utilize fertilizers. For example, it costs about US$ 15, US$ 30 and US$ 100 to move 1<br />

tonne of fertilizer 1 000 km in the United States, India and SSA respectively (Bationo et al., 2012).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

260<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Many farmers do not follow recommended fertilizer application rates because of cash or labour constraints.<br />

In much of Southern and Western Africa there is a dry season lasting 7 to 8 months. In the first weeks of<br />

the rainy season many farm operations such as planting, weeding, and fertilizing must take place in rapid<br />

succession. Farmers who weed maize twice at critical periods can achieve a higher yield with half the amount<br />

of fertilizer used by farmers who only weed once (Kabambe and Kumwenda, 1995), but many farmers do not<br />

have sufficient labour to weed more often.<br />

Output price instability is an important factor posing risks for fertilizer users in Western Africa (Byerlee et<br />

al., 1994). When markets are sparse, as they are in many rural areas dominated by subsistence production, the<br />

variations in market prices of crops tend to be wider than in regions where markets are more fully developed.<br />

Overall, the economics of fertilizer use are often not sufficiently positive, especially under rainfed conditions;<br />

farmers are cash-poor and so cannot buy expensive inputs; and farmers are highly averse to making cash<br />

outlays in unpredictable climatic conditions and with uncertain commercial returns.<br />

Extent of nutrient decline in the region<br />

The results of an FAO study (1983-2000) (Lesschen et al., 2003; Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990) which assessed<br />

N, P and K balances by land use system and by country revealed a generally downward trend in soil fertility<br />

in Africa. Overall, the study suggests that all African countries except Mauritius, Reunion and Libya show<br />

negative nutrient balances every year. The result for 2000 showed a deteriorating nutrient balance for almost<br />

all countries. This was influenced by the FAO estimates for crop production in 2000 and an accompanying<br />

expected decrease in fallow areas. For SSA as a whole, the nutrient balances were: -22 kg ha -1 in 1983 and -26 kg<br />

ha -1 in 2000 for N; -2.5 kg ha -1 in 1983 and -3.0 in 2000 for P; and -1 5 kg ha -1 in 1983 and -1 9 kg ha -1 in 2000 for K.<br />

Table 9.3 lists nutrient balances for several SSA countries. The study found substantial differences between<br />

countries. In 1993-95 the difference between nutrient inputs and nutrient losses in the continent ranged from<br />

-1<br />

4 kg of NPK per ha per year in South Africa to 136 kg in Rwanda. Burundi and Malawi also experienced rates of<br />

nutrient depletion above 100 kg of NPK per ha per year.<br />

Densely populated and hilly countries in the Rift Valley area (Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Malawi) had the<br />

most negative values, owing to high ratios of cultivated land to total arable land, relatively high crop yields,<br />

and significant erosion problems. In the semiarid, arid, and Sudano-Sahelian areas that are more densely<br />

populated, soils were found to lose 60 -1 00 kg of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) per ha each year.<br />

The soils of these areas are shallow, highly weathered, and subject to intensive cultivation with low-level<br />

fertilizer use.<br />

Short growing seasons contribute to additional pressure on the land. In important agricultural areas in<br />

the sub-humid and humid regions and in the savannas and forest areas, nutrient losses vary greatly. Rates of<br />

nutrient depletion range from moderate (30 - 60 kg of NPK per ha per year) in the humid forests and wetlands<br />

in southern Central Africa, to high (> 60 kg NPK per ha per year) in the East African highlands.<br />

More countries fall into the high depletion range than the medium range. Nutrient imbalances are highest<br />

where fertilizer use is particularly low and nutrient loss, mainly from soil erosion, is high. The low gains in<br />

nutrients, inherently low mineral stocks in these soils, and the harsh climate of the interior plains and<br />

plateaus aggravate the consequences of nutrient depletion. The estimated net annual losses of nutrients vary<br />

considerably by sub-region: 384 800 metric tonnes for North Africa, 110 900 metric tonnes for South Africa,<br />

and 7 629 900 metric tonnes for Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. This represents a total loss of US$ 1.5 billion<br />

per year in terms of the cost of nutrients as fertilizers.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

261<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


N P K<br />

Country<br />

1982-84 2000 1982-84 2000 1982-84 2000<br />

(kg ha -1 yr -1 )<br />

Benin<br />

-1<br />

4<br />

-1<br />

6<br />

-1<br />

-2 -9<br />

-1<br />

1<br />

Botswana 0 -2 1 0 0 -2<br />

Cameroon -20 -21 -2 -2<br />

-1<br />

2<br />

-1<br />

3<br />

Ethiopia -41 -47 -6 -7 -26 -32<br />

Ghana -30 -35 -3 -4<br />

-1<br />

7 -20<br />

Kenya -42 -46 -3<br />

-1<br />

-29 -36<br />

Malawi -68 -67<br />

-1<br />

0<br />

-1<br />

0 -44 -48<br />

Mali -8<br />

-1<br />

1<br />

-1<br />

-2 -7<br />

-1<br />

0<br />

Nigeria -34 -37 -4 -4 -24 -31<br />

Rwanda -54 -60 -9<br />

-1<br />

1 -47 -61<br />

Senegal<br />

-1<br />

2<br />

-1<br />

6 -2 -2<br />

-1<br />

0<br />

-1<br />

4<br />

United Republic of Tanzania -27 -32 -4 -5<br />

-1<br />

8 -21<br />

Zimbabwe -31 -27 -2 2 -22 -26<br />

Table 9.3 Estimated nutrient balance in some SSA countries in 1982-84 and forecasts for 2000. Surce: Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990;<br />

Roy et al., 2003.<br />

More nitrogen and potassium than phosphorus get depleted from African soils. Nitrogen and potassium<br />

losses primarily arise from leaching and soil erosion. These soil problems result mainly from continuous<br />

cropping of cereals without rotation with legumes, inappropriate soil conservation practices, and inadequate<br />

amounts of fertilizer use. Among West African countries, Guinea Bissau and Nigeria experience the highest<br />

annual losses of nitrogen and potassium. Nitrogen loss in East Africa is highest in Burundi, Ethiopia, Malawi,<br />

Rwanda, and Uganda, and phosphorus loss is highest in Burundi, Malawi, and Rwanda (IFPRI, 1999).<br />

Responses to nutrient decline<br />

The negative nutrient balances clearly indicate that not enough nutrients are being applied in most areas<br />

(Bationo et al., 2012). Annual application of nutrients in SSA averages about 10 kg of NPK per ha. Fertilizer tends<br />

to be used mostly on cash and plantation crops because of the higher profitability of fertilizer application in<br />

the production of cash crops. Food crops receive less fertilizer because of unfavourable crop/fertilizer price<br />

ratios and financial constraints faced by farmers. In addition, food crops are only partly commercialized.<br />

To maintain current average levels of crop production without depleting soil nutrients, Africa as a whole<br />

(including North Africa) would require approximately 11.7 million metric tonnes of NPK each year, roughly<br />

three times more than the continent currently uses (3.6 million metric tonnes) (Henao and Baanante, 1999).<br />

Of this quantity, Sub-Saharan Africa would need by far the largest proportion (76 percent) because the current<br />

average level of fertilizer use is so low. Total nutrient requirements per ha per year range from Botswana’s<br />

24.5 kg ha -1 NPK (a figure 350 percent above current usage) to Reunion’s 437.3 kg ha -1 NPK (about 20 NPK per<br />

ha less than the country consumes). Burkina Faso would have to increase its NPK consumption more than 11<br />

times to maintain crop production levels without depleting nutrients and Swaziland would have to double<br />

its consumption. Estimated average use for SSA as a whole would have to increase about 4 times to meet<br />

nutrient needs at the current level of production. Generally, more nitrogen is required than potassium, and<br />

more potassium than phosphorus.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

262<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


9.5 | Case studies<br />

9.5.1 | Senegal<br />

Introduction<br />

The main objective of the national land resources assessment undertaken in Senegal between 2000<br />

and 2010 was to identify for each land use system the status and trends of land degradation and the major<br />

sustainable land management interventions present in the country. This assessment used national and local<br />

technical expertise, including that of the land users themselves. The findings have been reported in several<br />

documents, maps and web-sites (Ndiaye and Dieng, 2013).<br />

The methodology was based on the premise that land degradation is largely driven by the way people use<br />

the environment in which they live. The level of degradation or sustainable use of a given land resource depends<br />

to a great extent on the needs and objectives of the land user, which are limited by technical knowledge<br />

and level of access to production factors (capital, labour etc.). Choices about land use take place within an<br />

integrated production system (Jouve, 1992). Consequently, defining the units in which both degradation and<br />

sustainable land management are to be described requires the identification of areas with similar geographic<br />

characteristics and then the mapping of the different production or land use systems. In Senegal this mapping<br />

was carried out using the ‘Framework for characterization and mapping of agricultural land use’ (George and<br />

Petri, 2006).<br />

In Senegal the following major land use systems were identified and characterized:<br />

1. Aquaculture and fishing, which takes place in areas covered with mangrove and other aquatic<br />

vegetation that are regularly flooded.<br />

2. Rainfed subsistence agriculture, which is characterized by the absence of livestock and minimal use of<br />

inputs.<br />

3. Agropastoral systems, characterized by a significant presence of rainfed agriculture but with greater<br />

levels of livestock activity. These systems are located in areas that receive between 400 and 700 mm<br />

of rainfall.<br />

4. Riverbank agriculture, characterized by the use of receding floodwaters to produce crops.<br />

5. Irrigated agriculture, characterized by intensive management and relatively high use of inputs.<br />

6. Forest based systems that exploit trees for timber.<br />

7. Conservation areas that are protected to preserve biodiversity<br />

8. Peri-urban agriculture, characterised by a mix of activities aimed at producing high-value products<br />

close to urban markets.<br />

9. Nomadic grazing, which takes place in the driest areas of the country and is characterized by shifting<br />

livestock and no permanent agriculture.<br />

The distribution of these land use systems and their extent within the country are given in Figures 9.5<br />

and 9.6 respectively.<br />

The national assessment of land degradation and sustainable management was carried out using available<br />

hard data and a questionnaire developed by FAO in collaboration with WOCAT (Liniger et al., 2011). The<br />

evaluation describes the actual situation and assesses the trends of land change over the last ten years. The<br />

method used local observations and measurements and expert opinion and covered the whole of Senegal.<br />

It has achieved the identification and characterization of land change in terms of degradation types, their<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

263<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


extent, degree, level, trend, causes and impacts on ecosystem services. Each of these parameters has been<br />

mapped and examples are given in Figure 9.7 (extent of dominant degradation type) and Figure 9.8 (rate of<br />

change of degradation). All information collected has been captured in a national database and analysed<br />

statistically (SOW-VU, 2010).<br />

Figure 9.5 Major land use systems in Senegal. Source: FAO, 2010.<br />

Figure 9.6 Proportional extent of major land use systems in the<br />

Senegal. Source: Ndiaye and Dieng, 2013.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

264<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Figure 9.7 Extent of dominant degradation type in Senegal. Source: FAO, 2010.<br />

Land degradation in Senegal - Average rate of degradation<br />

Legend<br />

Rate of increasing degradation<br />

Senegal<br />

Mauritania<br />

0.00 no change<br />

0.01<br />

0.5<br />

1 slowly increasing<br />

1.5<br />

2 moderately increasing<br />

2.5<br />

no data<br />

2.5<br />

Mali<br />

Atlantic<br />

Ocean<br />

Gambia<br />

Guinea-Bissau<br />

Guinea<br />

0 25 50 100 km<br />

Figure 9.8 Average rate of degradation in Senegal. Source: FAO, 2010.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

265<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Some examples of analysis of the data show the value of the national assessment:<br />

1. The analysis of the socio-economic drivers of land degradation in the country showed that poverty and<br />

population pressure are the main drivers, while governance and education are also significant. Land<br />

tenure and conflict situations were reported to be of minor importance as drivers of land degradation<br />

in Senegal.<br />

2. It is population pressure and poverty which lead in a majority of cases to deforestation and overgrazing<br />

and which, together with lack of access to extension services, lead to unsustainable soil and crop<br />

management. Urbanisation and mining are minor pressures in the country.<br />

3. Impacts of land degradation on ecosystem goods and services fell mainly on the productive services<br />

(affecting 15 percent of the area), while impacts on ecological services, in particular on biodiversity,<br />

were slightly less (13 percent). The influence on the socio-cultural provisioning services was the<br />

smallest, affecting only 6 percent of the area.<br />

4.<br />

Further field and socio-economic studies were undertaken at the local level, both in areas that were<br />

considered ‘hotspots’ for degradation and in ‘bright spots’ where degradation was less prevalent and<br />

sustainable management was practiced.<br />

The analysis of results in these local areas is illustrated in Figure 9.9 which gives the impact of degradation<br />

on the various ecosystem services. There is a major impact on the net returns of the farmers in all areas, but<br />

there are also important differences according to the different situations in each zone.<br />

Figure 9.9 Impact of degradation on ecosystem<br />

services in the local study areas in Senegal.<br />

Source: Ndiaye and Dieng, 2013.<br />

Responses have included measures implemented by the government, NGOs, the communities themselves<br />

and local producers. The principal responses were: assisted natural regeneration, agro-forestry, application of<br />

organic amendments, introduction or extension of fallow periods, composting, and using a millet/groundnut<br />

rotation. Most of these responses have proved to be efficient, but their adoption by land users has been slow,<br />

affected by lack of information and by economic and/or political constraints.<br />

9.5.2 | South Africa<br />

Of South Africa’s total area of 123.4 million ha, arable land accounts for only 11 -1 5 percent. Of this arable<br />

land, only about a quarter is high potential. This high potential land is thus a critical resource which needs to<br />

be protected. South Africa’s soils are diverse and complex as a result of varied soil formation and weathering<br />

processes. The largest proportion (81 percent) are slightly weathered and calcareous soils. More than 30<br />

percent of soils are sandy (e.g. less than 10 percent clay content) and almost 60 percent of soils have low<br />

organic matter content (Scotney, Volschenk and Van Heerden, 1990). The most important soil limitations<br />

are shallow depth, extremes of texture, rockiness, severe wetness and high erosion hazard. In terms of soil<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

266<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


management, it is important to note that agriculture in South Africa has a dualistic nature, with a welldeveloped<br />

commercial sector on the one hand, and a predominantly subsistence or small-scale agricultural<br />

sector in communal areas on the other.<br />

The first, and to date only, nationwide study of soil distribution was done by the Land Type Survey Staff<br />

(2003) from 1970 to 2003. The study delineated areas known as ‘land types’ at 1:250 000 scale - land types<br />

were defined as areas displaying a marked degree of uniformity in terms of terrain form, soil pattern and<br />

climate. The study included an in-depth analysis of a number of soil profiles, termed modal profiles, selected<br />

to represent the range of soils encountered during the survey. <strong>Soil</strong>s from 2 380 profiles across the country<br />

were described and analysed for morphological and chemical data and classified according to the binomial<br />

classification system developed for South Africa (MacVicar et al., 1977). Each land type includes a collection of<br />

soils and their relative distribution in terms of area per landscape position, as well as their characteristics in<br />

terms of physical and chemical properties. The resultant national map of broad soil patterns is shown in Figure<br />

9.10.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

267<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Figure 9.10 Broad soil patterns of South Africa. Source: Land Type Survey Staff, 2003.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

268<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


From 2006, several further national studies were conducted to assess the status of soils, land use trends,<br />

land degradation and sustainable land management implementation in the country. Results are summarized<br />

in this section. There is much evidence of mismanagement of soil resources which has led to widespread<br />

erosion by both wind and water, loss of soil fertility, compaction and acidification.<br />

National land degradation assessment<br />

Since land use is considered the single most important driver of land (and soil) degradation, land degradation<br />

assessments were conducted based on land use categories. For this purpose, a national stratification map<br />

was developed for South Africa based on amendments to the Land Use System Approach as described by<br />

Nachtergaele and Petri (2008) as well as by Pretorius (2009). On this basis, the stratification map adopted the<br />

following 18 land use categories:<br />

• Desert<br />

• Azonal vegetation<br />

• Savanna<br />

• Forest<br />

• Grassland<br />

• Nama-Karoo<br />

• Indian Ocean Coastal Belt<br />

• Succulent Karoo<br />

• Fynbos<br />

• Albany Thicket<br />

• Open Water<br />

• Urban<br />

• Cultivated – commercial – rain-fed<br />

• Cultivated – irrigated<br />

• Cultivated – subsistence – rain-fed<br />

• Plantations<br />

• Mines<br />

• Protected areas<br />

By integrating the local municipality boundaries with those of land use, a total of 2 447 unique units were<br />

derived for further assessment, as illustrated in Figure 9.11. Land degradation and sustainable land management<br />

implementation were then assessed in each of the 2 447 mapping units. The assessment was carried out from<br />

2008 to 2010 and was based on a participatory approach as part of a Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands<br />

(LADA) project. The approach relied strongly on the inputs from a range of experienced contributing specialists<br />

and land users who were conversant with the areas to be assessed. Data capturing was done through a series<br />

of 33 Participatory Expert Assessment (PEA) Workshops throughout the country, involving 728 contributing<br />

specialists (Wiese, Lindeque and Villiers, 2011).<br />

In terms of soil, the main forms of degradation at national level were soil erosion by water, biological<br />

degradation and chemical soil degradation. For soil erosion, sheet and gully erosion were considered the<br />

most serious threats, with river or stream bank erosion and off-site sedimentation considered less critical.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification and salinization were also highlighted, although their occurrence was more localized and<br />

area-specific.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

269<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Figure 9.11 The national stratification used for land degradation assessment in South Africa, incorporating local municipality<br />

boundaries with 18 land use classes. Source: Pretorius, 2009.<br />

Erosion assessment<br />

A separate spatial study was conducted on the extent of gully erosion in South Africa (Le Roux et al., 2008).<br />

The study also assessed national erosion potential in terms of soils, climate and topography (Le Roux, 2012).<br />

The assessment of water erosion susceptibility indicated that around 20 percent (26 million ha) of the country<br />

is classified as having a moderate to severe erosion risk (mainly based on sheet-rill erosion). The affected<br />

areas are concentrated in the south-eastern and north-eastern interior, mainly in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-<br />

Natal, Mpumalanga and Limpopo Provinces. All of these areas are characterized by a combination of high<br />

(often intense) rainfall, duplex soils derived from sodium-rich parent materials, and steep slopes (see Figure<br />

9.12). These natural conditions are often exacerbated by poor land use practices, such as incorrect cultivation<br />

methods, overgrazing by livestock and high population density. Under such circumstances, potential soil loss<br />

can easily be in the ‘Very High’ class of more than 50 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 (Le Roux et al., 2006).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

270<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Figure 9.12 Actual water erosion prediction map of South Africa. Source: Le Roux et al., 2012.<br />

The erosion process starts when the vegetation cover is disturbed or removed, allowing the rainfall to<br />

impact directly on bare soil. If measures to restrict surface run-off are not put in place, the effect is generally<br />

two-fold: firstly, the water flowing on the soil surface removes a significant amount of topsoil (‘sediment’),<br />

especially on steeper slopes; and secondly, the duplex nature of the soils (sandy topsoil abruptly overlying a<br />

structured clay subsoil) results in the formation of a surface seal. As a result, very little water is actually able to<br />

infiltrate the soil. Research in South Africa (Levy, 1988; Rapp, 1998; Bloem, 1992) indicated that exchangeable<br />

sodium percentage (ESP) values play an important role in erosion risk, with problematic values being over 12,<br />

although values as low as 5 or 6 (Bloem and Laker, 1994; Laker and D’Huyvetter, 1988) can also cause erosion<br />

under poor land use conditions.<br />

Combating soil erosion by water remains a huge challenge in many affected areas of the country due to<br />

a combination of lack of resources, poor knowledge or awareness and poor infrastructure, mainly roads.<br />

The challenges of treating erosion and the more difficult task of rehabilitating large areas of land, combined<br />

with the off-site effects such as silting up of dams, together pose one of the most serious soil management<br />

challenges in South Africa today.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> nutrient depletion, acidity and organic matter<br />

Although soil erosion by water was confirmed as the main soil degradation type in the country, there are<br />

areas in South Africa affected by wind erosion, nutrient depletion, loss of organic matter, soil acidity, salinity<br />

and sodicity as well as pollution from mining and industrial sources. Desktop assessments of soil nutrient<br />

depletion, acidity and organic matter in South Africa were conducted during 2007-2008 (Beukes, Stronkhorst<br />

and Jezile, 2008a,b; Du Preez et al., 2010; Du Preez et al., 2011a,b; Rantoa, Du Preez and Van Huyssteen, 2009).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

271<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Nutrient depletion and acidity<br />

A multitude of soil nutrient and acidity studies have been conducted over time in South Africa (Bierman,<br />

2001; Bloem, 2002; Buhmann, Beukes and Turner, 2006; Conradie, 1994; Eweg, 2004; Farina, Manson and<br />

Johnston, 1993; Mandiringana et al., 2005; Meyer et al., 1998; Miles and Manson, 2000; Thibaud, 2005). These<br />

studies included extensive reviews of international and national documentation, interviews with experts<br />

from various national and provincial institutions, and processing of data available from a number of national<br />

databases and soil analytical laboratories. Detailed results have been reported for each of the nine provinces<br />

in South Africa, but only a national summary is presented here (Beukes, Stronkhorst and Jezile, 2008a,b) with<br />

a focus on the agricultural sector.<br />

The impact of the dualistic nature of South African agriculture on soil nutrient depletion was clearly<br />

evident, with soils from the resource-poor/small-scale/upcoming farmers generally being acidified, severely<br />

P depleted, and N, K, Ca and Mg deficient (Manson, 1996; Beukes, Stronkhorst and Jezile, 2008b). Within this<br />

group, two sub-groups can be distinguished, as these farmers produce crops at two levels. The first sub-group<br />

is the home garden where relatively high fertility levels are evident. This is mainly because these gardens are<br />

located next to the homesteads and are therefore easier to manage. The second sub-group consists of crop<br />

fields which are larger and further from the homesteads. As a result, these fields are less secure in terms of<br />

livestock access and there are transport constraints. In addition, most smallholder farmers are risk-averse due<br />

to their limited resources. These fields are therefore generally severely nutrient depleted, especially in terms of<br />

P and K deficiencies, while N, Mg and Ca deficiencies are also often noted.<br />

By contrast, commercial agriculture operates on a much larger scale and higher levels of management and<br />

inputs are maintained on these farms to ensure higher productivity. This is especially the case in the sugar, vine<br />

and fruit farming sectors due to higher costs for crop establishment and maintenance. <strong>Soil</strong>s in the commercial<br />

sector generally exhibit P deficiency as the main nutrient concern, with K deficiency also occurring in many<br />

areas. Commercial pastures may have fewer deficiencies: for example in KwaZulu-Natal, P deficiency is almost<br />

negligible and K, Ca and Mg appear well supplied (Beukes, Stronkhorst and Jezile, 2008b).<br />

Naturally occurring acid soils are generally associated with high rainfall areas and certain geological<br />

materials which, in South Africa, are located in the western and southern Cape coastal belts, KwaZulu-Natal,<br />

Mpumalanga and Limpopo Province (see Figure 9.13). The extent of anthropogenic soil acidity in the country is<br />

not easy to estimate, but general trends can be observed. In the winter rainfall region, approximately 560 000<br />

ha is under cultivation, and on 60 percent of this area soils indicate problems with acidity. In Kwa-Zulu-Natal,<br />

roughly 35 percent of the more than 660 000 ha of cultivated soils have acid saturation values above 15<br />

percent. In the summer rainfall area west of the Drakensberg, 37 percent of topsoils in the cropped area are<br />

acidified (Beukes, 1995).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

272<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Figure 9.13 Topsoil pH derived from undisturbed (natural) soils. Source: Beukes, Stronkhorst and Jezile, 2008a.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic matter<br />

Although data on soil organic carbon in South Africa are limited, fragmented and uncoordinated, general<br />

trends of SOC content can be derived from a range of studies conducted (Barnard et al., 2000; McKean, 1993,<br />

Du Toit and Du Preez, 1993, Le Roux et al., 2005; Mills and Fey, 2004; Prinsloo, Willshire and Du Proez, 1990;<br />

Van Antwerpen and Meyer, 1996; Birru, 2002; Du Preez, Mnkeni and Van Huyssteen, 2010, 2011a, b). A review of<br />

SOC research estimated that approximately 58 percent of South African soils contain < 0.5 percent organic C,<br />

38 percent contain 0.5–2 percent organic C and 4 percent have > 2 percent organic C. These organic C contents<br />

vary greatly as a function of soil types, climate, vegetation, topography and soil texture, and are greatly<br />

influenced by management practices which result in organic C losses such as overgrazing, high levels of soil<br />

disturbance during cultivation, and the use of fire in rangeland management. <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter losses were<br />

generally associated with dryland cropping, but were less prevalent in irrigated agriculture. Increasing SOM<br />

is a slow process, but it has been achieved by implementing zero/minimum tillage, by mulching and through<br />

reversion of cropland to perennial pastures. Increases have mainly occurred in the upper 300 mm of soil, and<br />

in most instances, have been restricted to the upper 50 mm of soil.<br />

Loss of SOM has been found to result in lower nitrogen and sulphur reserves, but not necessarily in lower<br />

phosphorus reserves. Loss of SOM also coincided with changes in the composition of amino sugars, amino<br />

acids and lignin. It further resulted in a decline of water stable aggregates which are essential in the prevention<br />

of soil erosion.<br />

Rantoa, Du Preez and Van Huyssteen, (2009) used data from the approximately 2 200 modal profiles from<br />

the land type survey to estimate organic carbon stocks in South African soils with reference to master horizons,<br />

diagnostic horizons, soil forms and land cover classes. In summary, the average organic carbon content in the<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

273<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


master horizons ranges from 16 percent in the O horizon to 0.3 percent in the C horizons. In the diagnostic<br />

horizons, the highest average organic C in topsoils ranged from 21 percent in the O horizons to 1.4 percent in<br />

the orthic A horizons. In the diagnostic subsoil horizons, however, values ranged from 1.2 percent in podzol B<br />

to 0.2 percent in the dorbank horizons.<br />

Land Cover Change Assessment<br />

Land use trends give an indication of land conversion from one land use to another, which directly affects<br />

soil use properties as a function of management. A study of land-cover change was conducted in 2010<br />

based on land-cover data from 1994/1995, 2000 and 2005 employing a cost-effective approach which used<br />

Earth Observation data. The study was based on changes in five land-cover classes: urban, mining, forestry,<br />

cultivation, and other. These five classes are defined in Table 9.4 (Schoeman et al., 2010).<br />

Land-cover class<br />

Urban<br />

Mining<br />

Forestry and plantations<br />

Cultivation<br />

Other<br />

Class definition<br />

Human settlements, both rural and urban<br />

Areas covered by mining and related mining activities<br />

(also includes mine dumps)<br />

All forestry and plantations including woodlots and clear fell areas<br />

(excludes indigenous natural forests)<br />

All areas used for agricultural activities, including old fields<br />

and subsistence agriculture<br />

All other areas not covered by those listed above<br />

Table 9.4 Definitions of the five land-cover classes on which the land-cover change study was based. Source: Schoeman et al., 2010.<br />

The land-cover change results (Figure 9.14) indicated that at national level there was a total increase of<br />

1.2 percent in transformed land, specifically associated with Urban, Cultivation, Forestry & Plantation and<br />

Mining. This represents an increase from 14.5 percent transformed land in 1994 to 15.7 percent in 2005 across<br />

South Africa. On a national basis the areas of Urban, Forestry & Plantation, and Mining have all increased<br />

over the 10-year period, whereas Cultivation areas have decreased. Urban has increased from 0.8 percent to<br />

2 percent, Forestry & Plantation from 1.2 percent to 1.6 percent, and Mining from 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent,<br />

while Cultivation has decreased from 12.4 percent to 11.9 percent. The spatial patterns do, however, vary<br />

geographically across provinces in South Africa.<br />

The increase in urban and mining areas are the biggest concern in terms of soil conservation and future<br />

use since urban development involves soil sealing which irreversibly removes soils from other land uses, while<br />

mining results in serious chemical and physical soil degradation which can only be restored to a limited extent.<br />

For this reason, it is essential that soil suitability and potential for agricultural and environmental purposes<br />

be assessed in order to ensure that the high potential and environmentally important soils are reserved and<br />

conserved for food production purposes.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

274<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Figure 9.14 Change in land-cover between 1994 and 2005 as part of the Five Class Land-cover of South Africa after logical corrections.<br />

Source: Schoeman et al., 2010.<br />

9.6 | Summary of conclusions and recommendations<br />

Based on the above finding, an assessment is made of the status and trend of the ten soil threats in order<br />

of importance for the region. At the same time an indication is given of the reliability of these estimates (Table<br />

9.5).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation is considered one of the root causes of stagnating or declining agricultural productivity in<br />

SSA. Unless soil degradation can be controlled, many parts of the continent are expected to suffer increasingly<br />

from food insecurity. If this decline in the productivity of Africa’s soil resources continues, the consequences<br />

will be severe, not only for the economies of individual countries, but also for the welfare of the millions of<br />

rural households dependent on agriculture for meeting their livelihood needs.<br />

There is an urgent need for proactive interventions to arrest and reverse soil degradation. Rehabilitation of<br />

degraded land and conservation of those not yet degraded is the most desirable step for every country in the<br />

region, but this can only be achieved if the characteristics of the soil resources are well defined and quantified<br />

and soil monitoring systems established in every country.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

275<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Threat<br />

to soil<br />

function<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

Organic<br />

carbon<br />

change<br />

Nutrient<br />

imbalance<br />

Loss of soil<br />

biodiversity<br />

<strong>Soil</strong><br />

acidification<br />

Summary<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion constitutes<br />

>80% of land degradation<br />

in SSA, affecting<br />

about 22% of agricultural<br />

land and all countries in<br />

the region.<br />

The majority of causes<br />

related to the exposure<br />

of the bare soil surface by<br />

cultivation, deforestation<br />

overgrazing and drought.<br />

The replacement of<br />

the natural vegetation<br />

reduces nearly always<br />

the soil carbon level.<br />

Further carbon release<br />

from the soil is caused by<br />

complete crop removal<br />

from farmlands, the<br />

high rate of organic<br />

mater decomposition by<br />

microbial decomposition<br />

accentuated by high soil<br />

temperature and termite<br />

activates in parts of SSA.<br />

Nutrient imbalance, which<br />

is generally manifested by<br />

the deficiency<br />

of key essential nutrients<br />

is mainly due to the fact<br />

that fertilization has not<br />

been soil and crop specific,<br />

farmers are unable to pay<br />

the price for fertilizers<br />

and the inability to<br />

follow the rates that are<br />

recommended. Nearly all<br />

countries in the region<br />

show a negative nutrient<br />

balance.<br />

SSA suffers the world’s<br />

highest annual<br />

deforestation rate. The<br />

areas most affected are<br />

the in the moist areas<br />

of West Africa and the<br />

highland forests of the<br />

Horn of Africa. Cultivation,<br />

introduction of new<br />

species, oil exploration<br />

and pollution reduce<br />

the population of soil<br />

organisms thus reducing<br />

faunal and microbial<br />

activities.<br />

Over 25% of soils in Africa<br />

are acidic. Most of these<br />

occur in the<br />

wetter parts of the<br />

continent. In South Africa<br />

it poses as a serious<br />

chemical problem and<br />

the greatest productionlimiting<br />

factor.<br />

Condition and Trend<br />

Confidence<br />

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good In condition In trend<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

276<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Waterlogging<br />

Compaction<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> sealing<br />

and land take<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> pollution<br />

Most waterlogging threats<br />

are due to rise in water<br />

table due to<br />

poor infiltration/<br />

drainage or occurrence<br />

of impervious layer in the<br />

subsoil. Waterlogging<br />

generally reduces crop<br />

productivity, but in paddy<br />

fields is deliberate and<br />

beneficial.<br />

The major cause of<br />

compaction is pressure<br />

on the soil from heavy<br />

machinery. It is more<br />

serious in forested regions<br />

where land clearing (and<br />

even other cultivation<br />

activities) cannot be done<br />

without mechanization.<br />

These constitute problems<br />

mainly in peri-urban<br />

agriculture and valley<br />

sites used for dry season<br />

vegetable production.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> contamination by<br />

chemicals (fertilizers,<br />

petroleum products,<br />

pesticides, herbicides,<br />

mining) has affected<br />

agricultural productivity<br />

and other ecosystem<br />

services negatively. Nigeria<br />

and South Africa are the<br />

most affected.<br />

Table 9.5 Summary of soil threats status, trends and uncertainties in Africa South of the Sahara.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

277<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


References<br />

Abdalla, E., Meheissi, B. & Basher, N.E. 2011. Indicators of impact of climate change on salinity distribution<br />

and land-use in Sudan Agricultural Research Corporation, Wad Medani. Sudan Proceedings of the Global Forum on<br />

Salinization and Climate Change (GFSCC 2010), 25–29 October 2010. Valencia.<br />

Adeleke, B.O. & Leong, G.L. 1980. Certificate Physical and Human Geography, Oxford University Press Ltd, pp.<br />

42-43.<br />

Adeniran, J.R. 1993. The Study of Flood Hazards in Nigeria. An Unpublished Seminar Paper. University of Ilorin,<br />

Department of Geography.<br />

Amundson, R. 2001.The carbon budget in soils. Annu. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc., 29: 535–56.<br />

Ayuke, F.O., Brussaard, L., Vanlauwe, B., Six, J., Lelei, D.K., Kibunja, C.N. & Pulleman, M.M. 2011. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

fertility management: impacts on soil macrofauna, soil aggregation and soil organic matter allocation.<br />

Applied <strong>Soil</strong> Ecology, 48: 53–62.<br />

Barnard, R.O. 2000. Carbon sequestration in South African soils. ARC-ISCW Report No GW/A/2000/48.<br />

Pretoria, ARC-Institute for <strong>Soil</strong>, Climate and Water.<br />

Barnard, R.O., Van der Merwe, A.J., Nell, J.P., De Villiers, M.C., Van der Merwe, G.M.E. & Mulibana, N.E.<br />

2002. Technical Country report/in-depth study on problem soils including degraded soils in South Africa: Extent, present<br />

use, management and rehabilitation (with emphasis on salt-affected soils). 4th Meeting of FAO Global Network<br />

Integrated <strong>Soil</strong> Management for Sustainable Use of Salt-Affected <strong>Soil</strong>s. Spain, Valencia.<br />

Bationo, A., Buerkert, A., Sedogo, M.P., Christianson, B.C. & Mokwunye, A.U. 1995. A critical review of<br />

crop residue use as soil amendment in the West African Semi-arid tropics. In J.M. Powell, S. Fernandez-Rivera,<br />

T.O. Williams, C. Renard, eds. Livestock and sustainable nutrient cycling in mixed farming systems of Sub-Saharan<br />

Africa. Vol. 2. Pp. 305–322. Addis Ababa, International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA).<br />

Bationo, A., Kihara, J., Vanlauwe, B., Waswa, B. & Kimetu, J. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon dynamics, functions<br />

and management in West African agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems, 94: 13-25.<br />

Bationo, A., Mokwunye, U., Vlek, P.L.G, Koala, S. & Shapiro, B.I. 2003. <strong>Soil</strong> fertility management for<br />

sustainable land use in the West African Sudano-Sahelian zone. In M.P. Gichuru, eds., <strong>Soil</strong> Fertility Management<br />

in Africa: a regional perspective. Nairobi, CIAT, Academy of Science Publishers (ASP), Tropical <strong>Soil</strong> Biology &<br />

Fertility.<br />

Bationo, A., Waswa, B., Kihara, J., Adolwa, I., Vanlauwe, B. & Saidou, K. (eds.). 2012. Lessons learned from<br />

long-term soil fertility management experiments in Africa. Springer Science & Business Media.<br />

Beukes, D.J. 1995. Benefits from Identifying and Correcting <strong>Soil</strong> Acidity in Agriculture. Pretoria, ARC-ISCW. 12pp.<br />

ISBN: 1-86849-021-1..<br />

Beukes, D.J., Stronkhorst, L.D. & Jezile, G.G. 2008a. Development of a soil protection strategy and policy for<br />

South Africa: An overview of the soil acidity problem in South Africa. ARC-ISCW Report Nr. GW/A/2008/08.<br />

Beukes, D.J., Stronkhorst, L.D. & Jezile, G.G. 2008b. Development of a soil protection strategy and policy for<br />

South Africa: An overview of the soil nutrient depletion in South Africa. ARC-ISCW Report Nr. GW/A/2007/162.<br />

Bielders, C.L., Michels, K. & Rajot, J-L. 1985. On-Farm Evaluation of Ridging and Residue Management<br />

Practices to Reduce Wind Erosion in Niger. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 54: 1157–1161.<br />

Bierman, C.R. 2001. Grondvrugbaarheid en bemesting in die Noordwes Provinsie met verwysing na volhoubare<br />

droelandgewasverbouing. Bloemfontein, University of the Free State. 36 pp. (MSc Thesis)<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

278<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Birru, T.C. 2002. Organic matter restoration by conversion of cultivated land to perennial pasture on three agroecosystems<br />

in the Free State. Bloemfontein, University of the Free State. (M.Sc. dissertation)<br />

Bloem, A.A. & Laker, M.C. 1994. Criteria for the adaptation and design and management of centre-pivot<br />

irrigation systems to the infiltrability of soils. Water SA. 20: 127-132.<br />

Bloem, A.A. 1992. Criteria for the adaptation and design and management of centre-pivot irrigation systems to the<br />

infiltration potential of soils (in Afrikaans). University of Pretoria. (M.Sc. dissertation)<br />

Bloem, A.A. 2002. Databasis- en navorsingsresultate dui stikstoflewering van gronde aan. SA Graan/Grain, Julie<br />

2002. 44 pp.<br />

Bohlen, P.J., Edwards, W.M. & Edwards, C.A. 1995. Earthworm community structure and diversity in<br />

experimental agricultural watersheds in Northeastern Ohio. In H.P. Collins, G.P. Robertson & M.J. Klug, eds.<br />

The significance and regulation of soil biodiversity. pp. 271-278. Kluwer Academic, Netherlands.<br />

Buhmann, C., Beukes, D.J. & Turner, D.P. 2006. Plant nutrient status of soils of the Lusikisiki area, Eastern<br />

Cape Province. S Afr J Plant <strong>Soil</strong>, 23(2): 93-98.<br />

Byerlee, D.A., Anandajayasekeram, P., Diallo, A., Gelaw, G., Heisey, P.W., Lopez−Pereira, M., Mwangi,<br />

W., Smale, M., Tripp, R. & Waddington, S. 1994.Maize Research in Sub−Saharan Africa: An Overview of Past<br />

Impacts and Future Prospects. CIMMYT Economics working Paper 9403. Mexico, D.F. International Maize and<br />

Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).<br />

Charman, P.E.V. & Murphy, B.W. 2005. <strong>Soil</strong>s - Their Properties and Management. Melbourne, Vic, Oxford<br />

University Press in association with NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation,..<br />

CIA World Factbook. 2012. Also available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/<br />

Conradie, W.J. 1994. Vineyard Fertilization. Proceedings of a work session on vineyard fertilization, held at<br />

Nietvoorbij on 30 September 1994. Stellenbosch, Nietvoorbij, ARC-Fruit, Vine and Wine Research Institute. ,<br />

41 pp.<br />

Crossley, D.A., , Mueller, B.R. & Perdue, J.C. 1992. Biodiversity of Microarthropods in agricultural soils:<br />

relations to processes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 40: 37-46.<br />

Curry, J.P. 2004. Factors affecting the abundance of earthworms in soils. In C.A. Edwards, ed. Earthworm<br />

Ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton.<br />

De Villiers, M.C., Pretorius, D.J., Barnard, R.O., Van Zyl, A.J. & Le Clus, C.F. 2002. Land degradation<br />

assessment in dryland areas: South Africa. FAO Land Degradation Assessment in Dryland Project. Rome, FAO.<br />

Detwiler, R.P. 1986. Land use change and global carbon cycle: The role of tropical soils. Biogeochemistry, 2:<br />

67-93.<br />

Dregne, H. & Chou, N. 1992. Global desertification: dimensions and costs. In H. Dregne, ed. Degradation and<br />

restoration of arid lands. Lubbock, Texas Tech. University.<br />

Dregne, H. E. 1990. Erosion and soil productivity in Africa. Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> &Water Conservation, 45(4): 431–436.<br />

Du Preez, C.C., Mnkeni, P.N.S. & Van Huyssteen, C.W. 2010. Knowledge review on land use and soil organic<br />

matter in South Africa. 19th World Congress of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, <strong>Soil</strong> Solutions for a Changing World, 1 – 6 August<br />

2010. Australia, Brisbane.<br />

Du Preez, C.C., Mnkeni, P.N.S. & Van Huyssteen, C.W. 2011a. Knowledge review on land use and soil<br />

organic matter in South Africa 1. Spatial variability and rangeland stock production. S. Afr. J. Sci., 207: 27-34.<br />

Du Preez, C.C., Mnkeni, P.N.S. & Van Huyssteen, C.W. 2011b. Knowledge review on land use and soil<br />

organic matter in South Africa 2: Arable crop production. S. Afr. J. Sci., 207: 35-42.<br />

Du Toit, M.E. & Du Preez, C.C. 1993. Relationship between organic matter content of certain virgin orthic<br />

topsoils, soil properties and climatic data in South Africa. South African Journal of Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 10: 168-173.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

279<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Eswaran, H., Almaraz, R., van den Berg, E. & Reich, P. 1996. An Assessment of the <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> of Africa in<br />

Relation to Productivity. Washington, DC, World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>, <strong>Soil</strong> Survey Division, USDA Natural <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Conservation Service.<br />

Eswaran, H., Reich, P. & Beinroth, F. 1997. Global distribution of soils with acidity. In A.C. Moniz, ed. Plant-<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Interactions at Low pH, pp. 159-164. Brazilian <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society.<br />

Eweg, M.J. 2004. Changing fertiliser practices in the small-scale sector of the South African sugar industry:<br />

The role of Extension. Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass, 78: 393-402.<br />

Fakayode, S.O. & Onianwa, P.C. 2002. Heavy metal contamination of soil, and bioaccumulation in Guinea<br />

grass (Panicum maximum) around Ikeja Industrial In R. Lal & B. Stewart, eds. Advances in <strong>Soil</strong> Science, pp. 499-<br />

510. New York, Springer.<br />

FAO & World Bank. 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty. Improving Farmers’ livelihoods in a Changing World.<br />

Rome & Washington.<br />

FAO. 1993. The conservation and rehabilitation of African lands. Rome, FAO. 38 pp.<br />

FAO. 1999. Integrated <strong>Soil</strong> Management for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in Southern and East Africa.<br />

Agritex.<br />

FAO. 2001. <strong>Soil</strong> Fertility Management in Support of Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2005. Global Forest Resource Assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper 146. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2007. State of the <strong>World’s</strong> Forests 2007. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2010. Land Degradation Assessment for Dry Lands (LADA). Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2015. FAOSTAT. Rome, FAO. (Also available at http://faostat 3.fao.org/home/E )<br />

Farina, M.P.W., Manson, A.D. & Johnston, M.A. 1993. Maize in Natal. Fertilizer Guidelines. Natal Maize, 6:<br />

1-12.<br />

Favis-Mortlock, D. 2005. Erosion little and large. <strong>Soil</strong> Erosion Site. (Also available at www.soilerosion.net/doc/<br />

erosion_little_large.html)<br />

Fischer, G., Shah, M., van Velthuizen H. & Nachtergaele, F.O. 2002. Global Agro-ecological Assessment for<br />

Agriculture in the 21 st century: Methodology and Results. FAO/IIASA. Laxenburg, IIASA & Rome, FAO.<br />

Folscher, W.J. 1984. Stikstofdinamika in grond. In: Proceedings of the nitrogen symposium. Pretoria, <strong>Soil</strong> and<br />

Irrigation Research Institute, Private BagX 79.<br />

GEF. 2006. Evaluation Office Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Evaluation Document No. 1. Global Environment<br />

Facility. 42pp.<br />

George, H. & Petri, M. 2006. The rapid characterization and mapping of agricultural land use: A<br />

methodological framework approach for the LADA project. LADA Technical Report #1. Rome, FAO.<br />

Global HarvestChoice, 2010. Agro-ecological Zones of Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC, International<br />

Food Policy Research Institute & St. Paul, MN, University of Minnesota.<br />

Global HarvestChoice, 2011. Tsunami-wrecked Farmland: Insights from Droppr. Washington, DC, International<br />

Food Policy Research Institute & St. Paul, MN, University of Minnesota.<br />

Gray, K. M. 2005. Changing soil degradation trends in Senegal with carbon sequestration payments.<br />

Montana State University. 135 pp. (A M. Sc. Thesis)<br />

Guo, L.B. & Gifford, R.M. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Global Change<br />

Biology. 8(4): 345 - 360.<br />

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A. & Townshend,<br />

J.R.G. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160): 850-853.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

280<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Hein, L. & De Ridder, N. 2006. Desertification in the Sahel: A reinterpretation. Global Change Biology, 12:<br />

751–758.<br />

Henao, J. & Baanante, C. 1999. Nutrient depletion in the agricultural soils of Africa. 2020 Brief 62. A 2020 Vision<br />

For Food, Agriculture and Environment. IFPRI.<br />

Hooper, D.U., Adair, E.C., Cardinale, B.J., Byrnes, J.E.K., Hungate, B.A., Matulich, K.L., Gonzalez, A.,<br />

Houghton R.A. & Hackler J.L. 2006. Emissions of carbon from land use change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal<br />

of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, 111(G 2): G 02003. doi:10.1029/2005JG 000076,2006<br />

Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J. & Xiaosu D. (eds). 2001. Climate<br />

Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contributions of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the<br />

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. 881 pp.<br />

IAASTD. 2009. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development.<br />

Agriculture at a Crossroads. Synthesis Report. 106 pp.<br />

IFAD. 2009. The Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. IFAD.<br />

IFPRI. 1999. <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation A Threat to Developing-Country Food Security by 2020? by S.J. Scherr. Food,<br />

Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 27. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research<br />

Institute.<br />

ILCA. 1987. Assessment of Agricultural Research Priorities: An International Perspective. ACIAR Monograph, 4th<br />

Edition, ILCA’s Strategy and Long-Term Plan. Ethiopia, Addis Ababa..<br />

IPCC. 2007. Fourth Assessment report. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II<br />

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University<br />

Press.<br />

ISRIC/UNEP. 1990 World map of the status of human-induced soil degradation. The Netherlands, Wageningen,<br />

ISRIC.<br />

Jahnke, H.E. 1982. Livestock production systems and livestock development in tropical Africa. Germany, Kiel, Kieler<br />

Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk.<br />

Jimoh, H.I. 2000. Individual Rainfall Events and Sediment Generation on Different Surfaces in Ilorin, Nigeria Ilorin,<br />

University of Ilorin, Department of Geography. ,. 220 pp. (Ph. D. Thesis)<br />

Jones, A., Breuning-Madsen, H., Brossard, M., Dampha, A., Deckers, J., Dewitte, O. & Zougmore., R.<br />

2013. <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas of Africa.<br />

Jouve, P. 1992. Le diagnostic en milieu rural, de la région à la parcelle, n°6. Approche systémique des modes<br />

d’exploitation agricole du milieu. CNEARC, Juin. 40 pp.<br />

Kabambe, V.H. & Kumwenda, J.D.T. 1995. Weed management and nitrogen rate effects on maize yield in<br />

Malawi. In D. Jewell, S.R. Waddington, J.K. Ransom & K.V. Pixley, eds. Maize Research for Stress Environments<br />

Harare. Zimbabwe, CIMMYT.<br />

Knoepp, J.D. & Swank, W.T. 1997. Forest management effects on surface soil carbon and nitrogen. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci.<br />

Soc. Am. J., 61: 928–935.<br />

Laker, M.C. & D’Huyvetter, J.H.H. 1988. Slope-erodibility relationships for different soils in a semi-arid<br />

region of Ciskei. In Proceedings of the Fifth International <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation Conference, pp. 641-653. January 18-29,<br />

1988. Bangkok.<br />

Laker, M.C. 2005. Appropriate plant nutrient management for sustainable agriculture in Southern Africa.<br />

Communications in <strong>Soil</strong> Science & Plant Analysis, 36(1-3): 89-106.<br />

Lal, R. 1990. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and land degradation: The global risks. In R. Lal & B.A. Stewart, ed. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation.<br />

Vol. 11. Advances in <strong>Soil</strong> Science, pp. 129-172. Springer<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

281<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Lal, R. 1995. Erosion-crop productivity relationships for soils of Africa. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America Journal,<br />

59(3): 661-667.<br />

Lal, R. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma, 123: 1–22.<br />

Lal, R. 2006. Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic<br />

carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degradation and Development, 17: 197–209.<br />

Land Type Survey Staff. 2003. Land types of South Africa. Pretoria, ARC-Institute for <strong>Soil</strong>, Climate and Water.<br />

Le Roux, J.J. 2012. Water erosion risk assessment in South Africa: towards a methodological framework.<br />

PhD Thesis. University of Pretoria, Pretoria<br />

Le Roux, J.J., Morgenthal, T.L., Malherbe, J., Pretorius, D.J. & Sumner, P.D. 2008. Water erosion prediction<br />

at national scale for South Africa. Water SA, 34: 305-314.<br />

Le Roux, J.J., Morgenthal, T.L., Malherbe, J., Smith, H.J., Weepener, H.L. & Newby, T.S. 2006. Improving<br />

spatial soil erosion indicators in South Africa. Report No. GW/A/2006/51. Pretoria, ARC-Institute for <strong>Soil</strong>,<br />

Climate and Water.<br />

Le Roux, P.A.L., Hensley, M., Du Preez, C.C., Kotze, E., Van Huyssteen, C.W., Collins, N.B. & Zere, T.B.<br />

2005. The Weatherley catchment: <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter and vegetation baseline study. WRC Report No. KV<br />

170/50. Pretoria, Water Research Commission.<br />

Lesschen, J.P., Asiamah, R.D., Gicheru, P., Kanté, S., Stoorvogel, J.J. & Smaling, E.M.A. 2003. Scaling soil<br />

nutrient balances. Rome, FAO.<br />

Levy, G.J. 1988. The effects of clay mineralogy and exchangeable cations on some of the hydraulic properties of soil.<br />

University of Pretoria. (Unpublished D.Sc. thesis)<br />

Liniger, H. P., Studer, R. M., Hauert, C. & Gurtner, M. 2011. Sustainable Land Management in Practice–<br />

Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica, World Overview of Conservation Approaches<br />

and Technologies (WOCAT) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).<br />

Liu C., Lu M., Cui J., Li B. & Fang C. 2014. Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in agricultural<br />

soils: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol., 20(5): 1366-81.<br />

Lyles, L. 1975. Possible effects of wind erosion on soil productivity. Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation, 30: 279-283.<br />

Mabogunje, A.L. 1995. The Environmental Challenges in Sub Saharan Africa. Environment. African Technology<br />

Forum, 8(1): 4-11.<br />

MacVicar, C.N., De Villiers, J.M., Loxton, R.F., Verster, E., Lambrechts, J.J.N., Merryweather, F.R., Le<br />

Roux, J., Van Rooyen, T.H. & von Harmse, H.J. M. 1977. <strong>Soil</strong> classification - A binomial system for South Africa.<br />

Scientific Bulletin No 390. Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Technical Services.<br />

Mandiringana, O.T., Mkile, Z., Van Averbeke, W., Van Ranst, E. & Verplanke, H. 2005. Mineralogy and<br />

Fertility Status of Selected <strong>Soil</strong>s of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Comm <strong>Soil</strong> Sci and Plant Anal, 36:<br />

2431-2446.<br />

Manson, A.D. 1996. The fertility status of land used for small-scale cropping in KwaZulu-Natal. Cedara Report<br />

No. N/A/96/9. South Africa, Cedara, KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture. 9 pp.<br />

McCann, J.C. 2005. Maize and grace: Africa’s encounter with a new world crop 1500-2000. Cambridge, Harvard<br />

Univ. Press.<br />

McKean, S.G. 1993. <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter patterns, processes and effects in two contrasting savannas.University of<br />

Witwatersrand: Johannesburg. (M.Sc. dissertation)<br />

Meadows, M. E. & Hoffman, M. T. 2002. The nature, extent and causes of land degradation in South Africa:<br />

legacy of the past, lessons for the future? Royal Geographical Society, 34(4): 39-44.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

282<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Meyer, J.H., Harding, R., Rampersad, A.L. & Wood, R.A. 1998. Monitoring long term soil fertility trends in<br />

the South African sugar industry using the FAS Analytical Database. Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass, 72: 61-68.<br />

Miles, N. & Manson, A.D. 2000. Nutrition of planted pastures. In N Tainton, ed. Pasture Management in<br />

South Africa, pp. 180-232. South Africa, Pietermaritzburg, University of Natal Press.<br />

Mills, A.J. & Fey, M.V. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon and nitrogen in five contrasting biomes of South Africa exposed to<br />

different land uses. South African Journal of Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>. 21: 94-102.<br />

Mulugeta, L. 2004. Effects of Land Use Changes on <strong>Soil</strong> Quality and Native Flora Degradation and Restoration in<br />

the Highlands of Ethiopia: Implications for sustainable land management. (Doctoral Dissertation) ISSN 14016230,<br />

ISBN 91576 6540-0<br />

Murty, D., Krischbaum, M. F., McMurtrie, R. E. & McGilvray, H. 2002. Does conversion of forest to<br />

agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? A review of the literature. Glob. Change Biol., 8: 105–123.<br />

Nachtergaele, F. & Petri M. 2008. Mapping Land Use Systems at global and regional scales for Land Degradation<br />

Assessment Analysis. FAO.<br />

Nandwa, S. M. 2003. Perspectives on soil fertility in Africa. In M.P. Gichuru, eds. <strong>Soil</strong> fertility management in<br />

Africa: a regional perspective. Nairobi, Academy of Science Publishers (ASP), Tropical <strong>Soil</strong> Biology & Fertility of<br />

CIAT.<br />

Ndiaye, D.S. & Dieng, N. 2013. La gestion durable des terres au Sénégal:outils et politiques. Dakar, CSE.<br />

NEST. 1991. Nigeria’s Threatened Environment: a National Profile. Nigeria, NEST.<br />

Odai, S.N., Mensah, E., Sipitey, D., Ryo, S. & Awuah, E. 2008. Heavy metals uptake by vegetables<br />

cultivated on urban waste dumpsites: Case study of Kumasi, Ghana. Res. J. Environ. Toxicol., 2: 92-99.<br />

Ofomata, G.E.K. 1985. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion in Nigeria: the views of a Geomorphologist. University of Nigeria Inaugural<br />

Lecture Series No.7. Nigeria.<br />

Okigbo, D. 1977. Farming Systems and <strong>Soil</strong> Erosion in West Africa. In J. Greenland & R. Lal,eds. <strong>Soil</strong> and Water<br />

Conservation and Management in the Humid Tropics. U.K, John Wiley & Sons.<br />

Okwakol, M.J.N. 2000. Changes in termite (Isoptera) communities due to the clearance and cultivation of<br />

tropical forest in Uganda. Afr. J. Ecology, 38: 1-7.<br />

Oldeman, L. R. 1991. Global extent of soil degradation. Biannual report. The Netherlands, Wageningen,<br />

International <strong>Soil</strong> Reference and Information Centre.<br />

Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A. & Sombroek, W.G. 1991. World Map of the status of human- induced soil<br />

degradation: An explanatory note. Wageningen, The Netherlands, IFPRI & Kenya, Nairobi, United Nations<br />

Environment Programme.<br />

Oldeman, R. 2002. Assessment of Methodologies for Drylands Land Degradation Assessment. First Meeting of<br />

Technical Advisory Group and Steering Committee of the Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands. FAO,<br />

Rome, January 22 25. The Netherlands, Wageningen.<br />

Otte, M.J. & Chilonda, P., 2002. Cattle and small ruminant production in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic<br />

review. Rome, FAO.<br />

Palm, C.A., Gachengo, C.N., Delve, R.J., Cadisch, G. & Giller, K.E. 2001. Organic inputs for soil fertility<br />

management in tropical agroecosystems: application of an organic resource database. Agriculture. Ecosystem<br />

and Environment, 83: 27-42.<br />

Paoletti, M.G., Foissner, W. & Coleman, D.C. 1993. <strong>Soil</strong> Biota, Nutrient Cycling and farming Systems. USA,<br />

Boca Raton, Fl, Lewis.<br />

Pastor, J. & Post, W.M. 1986. Influence of climate, soil moisture and succession on forest carbon and<br />

nitrogen cycles. Biogeochemistry, 2: 3-27.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

283<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Perrings, C. & Lovett, J. 1999. Policies for Biodiversity Conservation: The Case of Sub-Saharan Africa. International<br />

Affairs. Wiley. (Also available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/inta.1999.75.issue-2/issuetoc)<br />

Pieri, C. 1989. Fertilité des terres de savane. Bilan de trente ans de recherche et de développement agricoles au<br />

Sud du Sahara. Paris, Ministère de la Coopération, CIRAD. 444 pp.<br />

Pretorius, D. 2009. Mapping Land Use Systems at a National Scale for Land Degradation Assessment Analysis in<br />

South Africa. South Africa, Department of Agriculture..<br />

Prinsloo, M.A., Willshire, G.H. & Du Proez, C.C. 1990. Loss of Nitrogen fertility and its restoration in some<br />

Orange Free State soils. S. Afr. J Plant <strong>Soil</strong>, 7: 55-61.<br />

Rantoa, N.R., Du Preez, C.C. & Van Huyssteen, C.W. 2009. Estimating organic carbon stocks in South African<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s. South Africa, Bloemfontein, University of the Free State. (MSc. Thesis)<br />

Rapp, I. 1998. Effects of soil properties and experimental conditions on the rill erodibility of selected soils. University<br />

of Pretoria. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis)<br />

Reich, P.F., Numbem, S.T., Almaraz, R.A. & Eswaran, H. 2001. Land resource stresses and desertification in<br />

Africa. In E.M. Bridges, I.D. Hannam, L.R. Oldeman, F.W.T. Pening de Vries, S.J. Scherr, and S. Sompatpanit, eds.<br />

Responses to Land Degradation. Proc. 2nd. International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification,<br />

Khon Kaen, Thailand. India, New Delhi, Oxford Press.<br />

Rhoades, C.C., Eckert, G.E. & Coleman, D.C. 2000. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon differences among forest, agriculture, and<br />

secondary vegetation in lower montane Ecuador. Ecological Applications, 10, 497–505.<br />

Ringius, L. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration and the CDM: Opportunities and challenges for Africa. Climate<br />

Change, 54: 471–495.<br />

Roy, R.N., Misra, R.V., Lesschen, J.P. & Smaling, E.M. 2003. Assessment of soil nutrient balance. Approached<br />

and methodologies. FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 14. Rome, FAO. 15 pp.<br />

Sanchez, P.A. 2000. Linking climate change research with food security and poverty reduction in the<br />

tropics. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 82: 371–383.<br />

Schjønning, P., Thomsen, I.K., Møberg, J.P., de Jonge, H., Kristensen, K. & Christensen, B.T. 1999.<br />

Turnover of organic matter in differently textured soils: I. Physical characteristics of structurally disturbed and<br />

intact soils. Geoderma, 89: 177-198.<br />

Schlesinger, P. & Winkler, J.P. 2000. <strong>Soil</strong>s and the global carbon cycle. In T.M.L. Wigley & D.S. Schimel, eds.<br />

The Carbon Cycle, pp. 93-101. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.<br />

Schneider, A., Friedl, M.A., Potere, D.A. 2010. Mapping global urban areas using MODIS 500-m data: New<br />

methods and datasets based on ‘urban ecoregions’. Remote Sensing of Environment. 114(8): 1733–1746.<br />

Schoeman, F., Newby, T.S., Thompson, M.W. & Ven den Berg, E.C. 2010. South African National Land-Cover<br />

Change Map. ARC-ISCW Report Number: GW/A/2010/47.<br />

Scotney, D.M. & Dijkhuis, F.J. 1990. Changes in the fertility status of South African soils. S. Afr. J. Science, 86:<br />

395-402.<br />

Scotney, D.M., Volschenk, J.E. & Van Heerden, P.S. 1990. The potential and utilization of natural agricultural<br />

resources of South Africa. Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Development. 11pp.<br />

Shepherd, K.D. & Soule, M.J. 1998. <strong>Soil</strong> fertility management in West Kenya. Agriculture, Eco systems and<br />

Environment, 71(1-3): 133- 147.<br />

Smaling, E. 1993. An agro- ecological frame work for integrated nutrient management, with special reference to<br />

Kenya. The Netherlands, Wageningen, Agricultural University. (Doctoral thesis)<br />

Smaling, E., Nandwa, S. & Janssen, B. 1997. <strong>Soil</strong> fertility in Africa is at stake. In R.J. Buresh & P.A. Sanchez,<br />

eds. Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. SSSA Special Publication. USA, Madison, Wisconsin, <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society<br />

of America and American Society of Agronomy.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

284<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Smith P. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon dynamics. In A.K. Braimoh & P.L.G. Vick, eds. Land Use and <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>.<br />

Springer Science & Business Media B.V.<br />

Sombroek, W., Nachtergaele, F. O. & Hebel, A.1993. Amounts, dynamics and sequestering of carbon in<br />

tropical and subtropical soils. Ambio, 22: 417–426.<br />

SOW-VU. 2010 National land degradation assessment Senegal and Review of global socio-economic<br />

parameters in the LADA database. Project Report. Amsterdam, SOW-VU.<br />

Stoorvogel, J.J. and Smaling, E.M.A. 1990. Assessment of soil nutrition depletion in Sub-Saharan Africa: 1983-<br />

2000. Report No. 28. Vol. 1. The Netherlands, Wageningen, Winand Staring Centre.<br />

Stoorvogel, J.J., Smaling, E.M.A. & Janssen, B.H. 1993. Calculating soil nutrient balances in Africa at<br />

different scales. 1. Supra-national scale. Fert Res, 35: 227–235.<br />

Swift, M.J. & Shepherd, K.D. 2007. Africa’s <strong>Soil</strong>s: Science and Technology for improved soil management in Africa.<br />

Nairobi, World Agroforestry Centre.<br />

Thibaud, G.R. 2005. NPK fertilization and liming in no-till. In A. Venter, T. Matchett, W. Mackenzie, D.<br />

MacNicol, B. Berry, B. Russell & V. Brummer, eds. A Guide to No-till Crop Production in KwaZulu-Natal. Howick,<br />

No-Till Club.<br />

Tieszen, L.L., Tappan, G.G. & Toure A. 2004. Sequestration of carbon in soil organic matter in Senegal: an<br />

Overview. Journal of Arid Environments, 59: 409–425.<br />

Todaro, M. 2000. Economic Development. Essex, Pearson Education Limited.<br />

Tschakert, P., Khouma, M. & Sene M. 2004. Biophysical potential for soil carbon sequestration in<br />

agricultural systems of the Old Peanut Basin of Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments, 3: 511–533.<br />

Udo, R.K. 1970. Geographical regions of Nigeria. London, Heinemann & Nigeria, Ibadan.<br />

UNDP. 2005. Population Division. World Population Prospects: the 2004 Revision and World Urbanization<br />

Prospects. Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat.<br />

UNEP. 1982. <strong>World’s</strong> soil policy. Kenya, Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme.<br />

UNEP. 2007. Global Environment Outlook 4 (GEO-4). Nairobi. 572 pp.<br />

UNEP. 2013. Second Global Conference on Land – Oceans Connection (GLOC-2). October 2-4, 2013. Jamaica,<br />

Montego Bay.<br />

UNSO/SEED/BDP. 1999. Promoting Farmer Innovation: Harnessing local environmental knowledge in East Africa<br />

Regional Land Management (RELMA). Unit Workshop Report No. 2, Urban Food Production: A Survival Strategy<br />

of Urban Households. Report of a Workshop on East and Southern Africa. May 3-5, 1998. Kenya, Nairobi.<br />

Vågen, T.G., Lal, R. & Singh, B.R. 2005. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Land<br />

Degrad. Dev., 16: 53–71.<br />

Van Antwerpen, R. & Meyer, J.H. 1996. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation under sugarcane cultivation in Northern KwaZulu-<br />

Natal. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technology Association, 70: 29-33.<br />

Van der Merwe, A.J. 1995. Wise land use: The basis for sustainable growth and development in South Africa’.<br />

Proceedings of the Wise Land Use Symposium. Pretoria: ISCW. pp. 2-8.<br />

Van der Merwe, A.J., De Villiers, M.C., Barnard, R.O., Beukes, D.J., Laker, M.C. & Berry, W.A.J. 2000.<br />

Technical report on guidelines on the management and rehabilitation of acid and fertility declined soils in South Africa.<br />

Proc. 2nd MADS-SEA-Network Meeting, September 18-22. Pretoria.<br />

Wiese, L., Lindeque, L. & De Villiers, M. 2011. Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands. Project Policy Report.<br />

ARC-ISCW Project Nr. GW/A/2011/52.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

285<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


Williams, C.A., Hanan, N.P., Neff, J.C., Scholes, R.J., Berry, J.A., Denning, A.S., Baker, Windmeijer P.N.<br />

& Andriesse W. 1993. Inland valleys in West Africa: an agro-ecological characterization of rice-growing environments.<br />

Publication 52. The Netherlands, Wageningen, ILRI, International Institute for Land Reclamation and<br />

Improvement.<br />

WMO. 2005. World Meteorological Organization. ISBN 92-63-10989-3. 34 pp.<br />

Woomer, P.L., Toure, A. & Sall, M. 2004. Carbon stocks in Sahel transition zone. J. Arid Environ., 32: 134–147.<br />

World Bank. 1992. Trade and the Environment: A Survey of the Literature. Background paper for World<br />

Development Report 1992. WB.<br />

World Bank. 1997. World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World. New York, Oxford University<br />

Press.<br />

World Bank. 1998. <strong>Soil</strong> Fertility Management in Sub−Saharan Africa. World Bank Technical Paper No. 408.<br />

World Bank. 2002. World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets. Oxford, Oxford<br />

University Press.<br />

Yanai, R.D., Stehman, S.V., Arthur, M.A., Prescott, C.E., Friedland, A.J., Siccama, T.G. & Binkley, D.<br />

2003. Detecting change in forest floor carbon. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 67: 1583– 1593.<br />

Zivin J.G. & Lipper, L. 2008. Poverty, Risk, and the Adoption of <strong>Soil</strong> Carbon Sequestration. Environment and<br />

Development Economics, 13: 353-373.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

286<br />

in Africa South of the Sahara


10 | Regional Assessment<br />

of <strong>Soil</strong> Change in Asia<br />

Regional Coordinator/Author: Kazuyuki Yagi (ITPS/Japan)<br />

Contributing Authors: Fahmuddin Agus (Indonesia), Tomohito Arao (Japan), Milkha S. Aulakh (ITPS/India),<br />

Zhaohai Bai (China), Rodel Carating (The Philippines), Kangho Jung (South Korea), Atsunobu Kadono (Japan),<br />

Masayuki Kawahigashi (Japan), Seung Heon Lee (South Korea), Lin Ma (China), G.P. Obi Reddy (India), G. S.<br />

Sidhu (India), Yusuke Takata (Japan), Tran Minh Tien (Vietnam), Renkou Xu (China), Xiaoyuan Yan (China),<br />

Kazunari Yokoyama (Japan), Fusuo Zhang (China), Dongme i Zhou (China).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

287<br />

in Asia


10.1 | Introduction<br />

This chapter describes the status of soil resources in the member countries of the Asian <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership<br />

(ASP), which includes East Asia (five countries: China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, Mongolia,<br />

and Republic of Korea), Southeast Asia (11 countries: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s<br />

Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Viet Nam),<br />

and South Asia (eight countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri<br />

Lanka).<br />

Asia, the Earth's largest and most populous continent, is located largely in the eastern and northern<br />

hemispheres. The region, which consists of the above-mentioned ASP countries, covers 4.1 percent of the<br />

Earth's total surface area and comprises 16 percent of its land area. With approximately 3.9 billion people, Asia<br />

hosts 55 percent of the world's population. Population density is high – averaging 1.87 persons ha -1 – compared<br />

to the world average of 0.54 person ha -1 . Like most areas of the world, Asia has experienced rapid population<br />

growth rate in the modern era. In the twentieth century, Asia's population nearly quadrupled, as did the world<br />

population.<br />

In general, Asia enjoys a warm and seasonally humid climate and is well-endowed with natural resources<br />

for agriculture. The unique combination of the monsoon climate and the exceptionally large lowland area has<br />

made Asia the rice basket of the world (Kyuma, 2004). Sustained high levels of staple food production have<br />

enabled Asian countries to support a large population within a limited area of arable land. However, recently,<br />

Asian countries have faced rapid changes in both socio-economic and natural factors and these have had major<br />

impacts on agro-environments in the region. In particular, rapid economic development and urbanization are<br />

changing land management systems in many countries, and climate change has emerged as a significant<br />

source of risks. These changes are having major impacts on the status of soil resources in the region.<br />

10.2. Stratification of the region<br />

10.2. 1 | Climate and agro-ecology<br />

The map of Asia shows many vast rivers with large alluvial plains and deltas. Major rivers include the Yellow,<br />

Yangtze, Mekong, Chao Phraya, Irrawaddy, Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Indus. The Himalayan mountain range<br />

runs for more than 2 400 km, separating the Indian subcontinent from the rest of Asia. Many of Asia's major<br />

rivers have their source in the Himalayas and adjacent plateaus. These rivers have created vast areas of fertile<br />

land suitable for farming. On the east and southeast shores of the continent lie a number of islands chains or<br />

island arcs, many characterized by mountainous landscape with volcanic activities.<br />

Most areas of the Asian region are strongly influenced by the monsoon, a seasonal reversing wind<br />

accompanied by corresponding changes in precipitation. For this reason, the region is often called ‘Monsoon<br />

Asia’. The Asian monsoon is a highly significant component of the global climate system. It has a huge influence<br />

on how people live and on their livelihoods, and it provides water resources throughout the region (Salinger<br />

et al., 2014). The East Asian monsoon carries moist air from the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean to East<br />

and Southeast Asia in summer. In winter, it reverses and carries cold, dry air from the Eurasian Continent. In<br />

south Asia, winds blow from June to September from a south-westerly direction from the Indian Ocean onto<br />

the Indian landmass, bringing rain to most parts of the subcontinent. Subsequently, from around October,<br />

the winds reverse direction and start blowing from a north-easterly direction, from the subcontinent onto<br />

the Indian Ocean. These winds carry less moisture and bring rain to only limited parts of India. Dry areas<br />

predominate in parts of the north-western interior where the influence of oceanic winds is less. This wide<br />

diversity of climate is a major factor in the stratification of the region into different agro-ecological zones<br />

(Figure 10.1)<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

288<br />

in Asia


Figure 10.1 Length of the available growing period in Asia (in days yr -1 ). Source: Fischer et al., 2012.<br />

A distinctive feature of monsoon Asia is its very high share of the world’s area and production of rice (Kyuma,<br />

2004). Some 90 percent of the global acreage and output of rice are concentrated in the region, earning it the<br />

title of ‘rice granary’ of the world. This dominance of rice cultivation is due to several factors, notably high<br />

precipitation and temperatures and the existence of extensive lowlands suitabe for paddy prduction. The vast<br />

expanse of lowlands is a unique feature of the region, resulting from a combination of geological instability and<br />

the high precipitation. Rice cultivation originally emerged as an adaptation to extensively inundated lowlands,<br />

but with time it was expanded to areas that could support rice only with irrigation. High productivity and high<br />

sustainability are the outstanding advantages of rice cultivation. By contrast, upland cultivation of dryland<br />

crops in Monsoon Asia is handicapped by low soil fertility and high susceptibility to soil erosion.<br />

10.2.2 | Previous regional soil assessments<br />

Based on the report by Oldeman (1991), the GLASOD project estimated that human-induced soil<br />

degradation in Asia region (including non-ASP west Asian countries) accounted for 31 percent of the inhabited<br />

land area, the highest share of any of the global regions. <strong>Soil</strong>s in Asia were found to have been degraded by<br />

several factors: water erosion (59 percent), wind erosion (30 percent), chemical degradation (10 percent) and<br />

physical degradation (2 percent). Deforestation was identified as the most dominant causative factor for soil<br />

degradation, followed by agricultural activities and overgrazing. In most Asian countries the mining of soil<br />

nutrients is causing decline of average crop yields. Fertile soil is washed away by the erosive forces of water, or<br />

blown away by wind. This so-called first generation of environmental problems is leading not only to negative<br />

nutrient balances but also to habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity (Oldeman, 2000).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

289<br />

in Asia


Following GLASOD, the need for more detailed and more country-specific degradation assessments<br />

became apparent. In 1993, the members of the Asian Network on Problem <strong>Soil</strong>s recommended the preparation<br />

of a qualitative assessment for South and Southeast Asia at a scale of 1:5 million. This recommendation was<br />

acknowledged by FAO and UNEP. FAO assigned ISRIC to prepare a new physiographic map and database<br />

at 1:5 million scale. UNEP prepared and implemented the Assessment of the Status of Human-Induced <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Degradation in South and Southeast Asia (ASSOD). Sixteen national institutions for natural resources in the<br />

region collaborated on the project under the coordination of ISRIC. The ASSOD project published revised subregional<br />

Guidelines for General Assessment of the Status of Human-Induced <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation and produced<br />

regional maps on the status of human-induced soil degradation at a scale of 1:5M together with digitized<br />

version of the map (van Lynden and Oldeman, 1997).<br />

The different soil degradation types inventoried by ASSOD are described below and shown in Figure 10.2:<br />

• Water erosion: Water erosion covers 21 percent of the total land area in the region (or 46 percent of the<br />

total degraded area). It is predominant in large parts of China (>180 million ha) except for the northern<br />

parts, on the Indian subcontinent (>90 million ha) and in the sloping parts of Indochina (40 million ha),<br />

the Philippines (10 million ha) and Indonesia (22.5 million ha). In relative terms, as a percentage of the<br />

total country area, moderate to extreme water erosion is particularly important in India (10 percent),<br />

the Philippines (38 percent), Pakistan (12.5 percent), Thailand (15 percent) and Vietnam (10 percent).<br />

• Wind erosion: Wind erosion (9 percent of the total area, 20 percent of all degradation) is concentrated<br />

mainly in the most western and northern arid and semi-arid desert regions of Pakistan (>9 million ha<br />

on-site and >2 million ha off-site), India (20 million ha on-site, 3.6 million ha offsite) and China (>70<br />

million ha on-site, >8.5 million ha off-site). Although large parts of these regions may be considered<br />

deserts, some human-induced wind erosion was also reported.<br />

• Chemical deterioration: Chemical deterioration is distributed in patches, probably also partly due to<br />

different perceptions of this type of degradation. About 11 percent of the total area (or 24 percent of the<br />

degraded area) is affected by some kind of chemical deterioration. High relative extents of chemical<br />

deterioration (>30 percent of total country area) can be observed in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Sri Lanka,<br />

Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand, generally with negligible to light impact.<br />

• Physical deterioration: Occurrence of physical deterioration (affecting about 4 percent of the total<br />

area or 9 percent of the total degraded area) is even more dispersed and infrequent than chemical<br />

deterioration. Waterlogging and aridification are the main subtypes, in particular in Bangladesh,<br />

China, India and Pakistan. Compaction or crusting/sealing is relatively unimportant except in Thailand<br />

and the Philippines, although they occur in most countries. Waterlogging and compaction as a result<br />

of paddy cultivation are not considered as degradation. Loss of productive function as a result of<br />

urbanisation, industrialisation and infrastructure has been indicated for only a few countries although<br />

this phenomenon is on the rise.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

290<br />

in Asia


Figure 10.2 Threats to soils in the Asia region by country.<br />

10.3 | General threats to soils in the region<br />

10.3.1 | Erosion by wind and water<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion is the most important threat to soil in Asia. Water erosion by rainfall and surface water flow is<br />

dominant in humid regions with torrential rains, as in South and East Asia. In drier or desert areas, wind is the<br />

driving force inducing soil erosion. This threat is discussed below in Section 10.4.1 in detail.<br />

10.3.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

Data for evaluating soil organic carbon (SOC) change in Asian countries are limited because countries do<br />

not generally monitor SOC stock and changes. However, data from available literature show that where there<br />

are increases in crop yield in croplands of East and Southeast Asia, SOC is retained. SOC has also been shown<br />

to accumulate in forest areas. However, in South Asia SOC is decreasing. This is because crop residues are<br />

widely used as fuel and fodder and are not returned to the soil. In Indonesia, three anthropogenic activities<br />

– deforestation, poor land management, and intensive cropping – contribute to SOC change in mineral and<br />

peat soils (Section 10.5.2). Throughout the region, the degradation of grassland has generally caused great<br />

losses of SOC stock. This threat is discussed in detail below in Section 10.4.2.<br />

10.3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination<br />

Sources of contamination of arable land in most Asian countries include (i) parent material, (ii) mining,<br />

(iii) smelting, (iv) agrochemicals and sewage sludge applications, and (v) livestock manure uses (Luo et<br />

al., 2009). There is an urgent need to reduce hazardous chemical concentrations of Cd, As, Pb, Cu and Zn,<br />

especially in paddy soil and rice grains. In many regions of Southeast Asia (Bangladesh, India, China, Vietnam,<br />

Taiwan - Province of China, Thailand and Nepal), arsenic is naturally present in groundwater and represents<br />

a threat to sustainable agriculture (Smedley, 2003; Brammer and Ravenscroft, 2009). This enrichment is<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

291<br />

in Asia


magnified considerably when mining takes place, as it is the case of the Ron Phibun district, in southern<br />

Thailand (Williams et al., 1996). Arsenic contamination particularly affects rice, as this crop not only requires<br />

large amounts of water but is also grown under the anaerobic conditions favoured in rice fields where As is<br />

mainly present in its trivalent form which is readily available to plants (Brammer and Ravenscroft, 2009).<br />

The agricultural rice soils of the Guandu Plain in Taiwan, Province of China are seriously contaminated with<br />

As and Pb (Zhuang et al., 2009; Chang et al., 1999, 2007). Cadmium pollution of paddy fields has been found<br />

downstream of a Zn mineralized area in Thailand (Simmons et al., 2005). China contributes around 28 percent<br />

of global Hg emissions, with India, Japan and the Korea Democratic Republic also among the ten countries<br />

that contribute the most to global Hg emissions (Li et al., 2009).<br />

According to the Agricultural Land <strong>Soil</strong> Pollution Prevention Law in Japan, the maximum allowable limit<br />

of Cd in paddy fields is set in terms of the Cd concentration in rice grains produced in the field, not the soil Cd<br />

concentration of the field. This is because the amount of bio-available Cd in soil is affected dramatically by<br />

water management practices used for rice cultivation (Asami, 1981).<br />

With rapid industrialization, urbanization and intensive use of farmland, China is now facing serious soil<br />

pollution (Ministry of Environmental Protection, the People’s Republic of China, 2014). About 19.4 percent<br />

of farmland has high levels of Cd, Ni and As pollution. <strong>Soil</strong> contamination has been estimated to cause a<br />

reduction of more than 107 tonnes of food supply annually (Wei and Chen, 2001). In 2006-2010, China’s<br />

Ministry of Environmental Protection and Ministry of Land and <strong>Resources</strong> jointly launched a nationwide<br />

investigation of soil pollution status, covering an area of 6.3 million square kilometers. In 2014, a Communiqué<br />

on Nationwide <strong>Soil</strong> Contamination was issued by the two ministries indicating that the overall situation of<br />

the soil environment in China is not encouraging. Some regions are heavily polluted. There is concern over<br />

the quality of farmland soils and over other soil environmental issues also caused by anthropogenic activities,<br />

e.g. those related to mining and industrial activities which cause atmospheric deposition, and to the use of<br />

livestock manures (Luo et al., 2009). Trace elements are pollutants of major concern, especially in the southern<br />

area of China. Currently, the evaluation of soil pollution in China is primarily based on the Environmental<br />

Quality Standard for <strong>Soil</strong>s which was promulgated and implemented in 1995. The Standard needs further<br />

improvement because of its stringent limitations. At present, China’s Ministry of Agriculture is working on an<br />

Implementation Plan on Prevention and Control of Heavy Metal Pollution in Agricultural Products.<br />

Historic and current rates of intensive pesticide and fertilizer use in agricultural land and also industrial<br />

development have caused the accumulation of organic pollutants and heavy metals in soils of Indonesia.<br />

Earlier research showed high concentration of organo-chlorines in vegetables (Dibiyantoro, 1998). However,<br />

residue levels in foodstuffs have gradually reduced to within acceptable daily intake levels as established<br />

by WHO (Shoiful et al., 2012; Rahmawati et al., 2013). The tapioca industry in Java is now recognized as a<br />

contributor to cyanide levels which have risen above background levels in river water (Indrayatie et al., 2013).<br />

Mining plays an important role in the Indonesian economy but this mining, particularly artisanal and smallscale<br />

mining (ASGM), can have a major impact on the environment (Limbong et al., 2003; Prasetyo et al., 2010).<br />

During ASGM, Hg is used to recover Au from the ore during grinding. The process is inefficient and releases<br />

a significant amount of Hg to soil, water and the atmosphere (Limbong et al., 2003; Edinger et al., 2008).<br />

Tailings from Hg amalgamation are then leached with cyanide. Ultimately, the final waste, contaminated<br />

with metals and cyanide, is released into the environment (Veiga et al., 2009). Many ASGM operations also<br />

release As and Sb to the environment, although this depends on the composition of the host ore (Edinger et al.,<br />

2008). These operations are unlicenced and illegal. Indonesia has now signed the Minamata Convention on<br />

Hg and has decentralized control of ASGM operations to provincial governments. Environmental protection<br />

has become a primary objective for government regulation.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

292<br />

in Asia


10.3.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification<br />

There is large area of acid soils distributed across the tropical and subtropical regions of Asia, mainly in<br />

Southeast Asia, parts of East Asia and parts of South Asia. Acid sulphate soils are widely distributed in the<br />

coastal plains of Southeast Asia and southern China. The total area of acid sulphate soils in Southeast Asia is<br />

7.5 million ha and there are about 112 thousand ha of these soils in China (Shamshuddin et al., 2014). The soils in<br />

these regions are also sensitive to external acid such as acid deposition (Hicks et al., 2008).<br />

In Vietnam, ferralitic, basaltic, and grey degraded soils, which cover about one third of the country, have<br />

strong potential for acidification and degradation because of their nature (NISF, 2012). A leading contributor<br />

to soil acidification in Vietnam is the unbalanced and unsuitable application of chemical fertilizers. Data<br />

from the International Fertilizers Association (IFA) show that from 1961 to 2012, total NPK chemical fertilizer<br />

use in Vietnam increased 31 times (IFA, 2012). The increase in fertilizer application and unbalanced use lead<br />

to inadequate presentations of acidic factors in soil solutions. Some types of fertilizers (including organic<br />

fertilizers) can make the soil more acidic (Nguyen, 2014). Another reason for the acidification process in<br />

Vietnam is the presence of sulphate soil. The area of sulphate soil in the Red River delta has increased by 7 000<br />

ha and the content of S in this soil has also strongly increased. In the Mekong river delta, the area has reduced<br />

by 261 000 ha and the content of total exchangeable cations and total dissolved salts has also reduced.<br />

Increase in temperature, change of precipitation, and sea level rise due to climate change may also be having<br />

negative effects on this process in Vietnam.<br />

The total area of Indonesian acid upland soils (pH


10.3.6 | Loss of soil biodiversity<br />

Potentially the greatest contributor to soil biodiversity loss in Asia is land use change. In China, for example,<br />

an assessment of land-use change across the country indicated that the largest changes were associated with<br />

the conversion of productive cultivated land to urban areas, thereby removing fertile land from agricultural<br />

production. Conversion of cultivated areas, forest and grasslands between 1996 and 2008 has been estimated<br />

to be 1 475 × 104 ha, 269 ×104 ha, and 536 ×104 ha, respectively (Wang et al., 2012). There have been attempts<br />

at land restoration to maintain soil biodiversity, such as in the coastal lands in the Jiangsu Province of China.<br />

Generally, there is a higher diversity of soil macrofauna in uncultivated land and forests compared to less<br />

diverse wheat farms and bulrush land (Baoming et al., 2014). <strong>Soil</strong> faunal diversity is significantly impacted<br />

by land use with a strong relationship between vegetation and macrofauna distribution and composition<br />

(Baoming et al., 2014). In Thailand, the forested land area has decreased by more than 50 percent in the past<br />

40 years (Fisher and Hirsch, 2008). Although reforestation measures can be used to restore degraded lands,<br />

difficulties with establishment of native trees in these areas may lead to the use of substitute trees, resulting<br />

in long lasting effects on soil biodiversity. For example, a study of soil microbial communities of an Acacai tree<br />

plantation established on degraded land in Thailand found reduced microbial activities compared to natural<br />

evergreen forest, suggesting that key microbes had been lost (Doi and Ranamukhaarachchi, 2013).<br />

Studies in India have also indicated an effect of land use change on soil organisms. The Nilgiri biosphere<br />

reserve in the Western Ghats of India, a global hotspot for aboveground biodiversity, has been under pressure<br />

because of high population density in the surrounding region (Mujeeb Rahman, Mujeeb, Varma and Sileshi,<br />

2012). In this area, land management had a significant effect on soil macrofauna, with larger densities and<br />

diversity found in the forest sites and a clear response of macro-invertebrates to land use (Rossi and Blanchart,<br />

2005). Interestingly, there was a high similarity in macrofauna between primary forest and disturbed forest<br />

plots, which indicated the potential of land restoration. A separate morphological analysis of soil invertebrate<br />

density at 15 different land use sites (from intensively managed agricultural systems to pristine forests)<br />

identified a wide range of soil faunal groups including earthworms, termites, ants, grasshoppers, crickets,<br />

mole crickets, bugs, coccids, cicadas, woodlice, centipedes, millipedes, and spiders (Mujeeb Rahman,<br />

Mujeeb, Varma and Sileshi, 2012). The natural forests had significantly higher taxonomic richness at the family<br />

level than soils from the annual cropping system and a significantly higher total number of individuals than<br />

annual crops, agroforestry and plantations. The highest richness (identified to family level) was found in the<br />

sites with the least anthropogenic disturbance, and the greatest diversity of earthworms, ants and termites<br />

(determined to species level) was found in the more complex forest ecosystems. An earlier study in the region<br />

recorded almost double the number of earthworm species in soils from forest compared to pasture (Blanchart<br />

and Julka, 1997). These results indicate a decrease in earthworm biodiversity associated with forest loss and a<br />

lower diversity of soil macrofauna with more intensive land use.<br />

In addition to anthropogenic pressures on soil biodiversity, natural disturbances such as tsunamis can<br />

affect soil biodiversity. Tsunami-affected areas in the Phang Nga province of Thailand had a higher proportion<br />

of prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria; 83.25 percent) compared to non-affected areas (72.5 percent), whereas<br />

the non-affected areas were more hospitable to eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi and protists) (Somboonna<br />

et al., 2014). Increased occurrences of tsunamis and other natural disasters may result in losses to above and<br />

belowground biodiversity.<br />

There has not been a comprehensive analysis of threats to soil biodiversity in Asia completed to date.<br />

Scientific evaluation of soil biodiversity over large regions has been extremely difficult due to: (1) size of<br />

organisms, (2) large abundance and diversity of organisms, and (3) lack of research and gaps in the information<br />

collected. In Japan, the fusion of complex systems theory and computer technology has made it possible to<br />

employ the tools of statistical physics to develop a totally new technology for assessment of farmland soils<br />

(Yokoyama, 1993). The technology is used primarily for a health check on farmland soil, to measure the<br />

environmental affinity of production. Commercial analysis services have been started to add value to the<br />

products (Sakuramot, Yokoyama and Iekushi, 2010; Yokoyama and Taguchi, 2013).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

294<br />

in Asia


In paddy rice cultivation and upland farming with sustainable agriculture, crop rotation and organic<br />

amendments have generally maintained good soil microbial diversity. However, loss of significant microbial<br />

diversity is notable in large-scale and intensive vegetable production areas due to: (i) continuous monoculture<br />

cropping, (ii) over-cultivation, (iii) intensive use of chemical fertilizers, (iv) chemical fumigation of soils to<br />

prevent soil-borne diseases, (v) soil contamination and non-target effects of chemical pesticides such as<br />

fungicides, nematicides, herbicides and insecticides, and (vi) over-application of herbicides for weed control.<br />

The loss of diversity in the soil is conducive to further diseases and other cropping issues from processes (ii) to<br />

(vi).<br />

Recently, the effect of poor management practices on soil biodiversity has led to concerns. As a result,<br />

environmental and safety-oriented consumers have tried to promote organic farming and to accelerate the<br />

branding of sustainably produced agricultural products based on scientific evidence. The idea is to create<br />

incentives for farmers to consider soil biodiversity in their farming practices. The private sector has undertaken<br />

evaluation of microbial diversity, demonstrating high soil microbial diversity in organically managed paddy<br />

fields in Taiwan - Province of China and in the Philippines, as well as in upland crops in southern China.<br />

However, in soils of the semi-arid areas of northern China, the loss of microbial diversity is severe. Here the<br />

processes mentioned –in points (i) to (vi) above may lead to soil drying, increases in salt concentrations and a<br />

loss of stable soil surface. These changes could potentially result in loss of soil organisms, although research<br />

exploring the loss of ecosystem functions and services from these soils has yet to be conducted.<br />

10.3.7 | Waterlogging<br />

Two types of waterlogging may occur – permanent waterlogging in natural swampland, and occasional<br />

waterlogging in flood prone areas along the flat coastal regions and flood plains of main rivers. Constructed<br />

wetlands such as paddy fields are intentionally flooded as part of the management system. Waterlogging<br />

can have other anthropogenic causes such as poor drainage systems in settlements, industrial and urban<br />

development, or deforestation in upstream areas, all of which may increase the threat of water logging in<br />

flood prone areas.<br />

In the GLASOD estimate, waterlogging affects 4.6 Mha in Asia, largely in the irrigated areas of India and<br />

Pakistan. Waterlogging is closely linked with salinization. Since the start of large scale irrigation schemes in<br />

the 1930s, the progressive rise in the water table beneath irrigation areas on the Indo-Gangetic plains has<br />

been monitored (e.g. Ahmad and Kutcher, 1992). For India, monitoring results suggest a waterlogged area<br />

more than twice the GLASOD estimate. For Pakistan, four sources give total areas affected by waterlogging<br />

of between 1.6 and 3.7 million ha, compared with the GLASOD value of 0.96 million ha. Since the Pakistan<br />

country data come from at least two independent surveys, show good agreement and are believed to result<br />

from detailed field surveys, these country estimates are likely to be more accurate than the much lower<br />

GLASOD estimates.<br />

10.3.8 | Nutrient imbalance<br />

Harvested crops remove nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients from agricultural soils. Hence, sustaining<br />

agricultural production requires replacement of those nutrients, whether through biological processes<br />

like nitrogen fixation or through the addition of animal wastes or mineral fertilizer to fields (Vitousek et al.,<br />

2009). Balanced nutrient supply is essential for achieving high crop yields, but excessive and/or imbalanced<br />

nutrient input may pose risks to the environment, human health and ecosystems. Nutrient inputs in Asia vary<br />

considerably amongst countries, areas and farming systems.<br />

In some countries or regions in Asia, removal of nutrients from the soil in crop harvest appears substantially<br />

to exceed inputs through natural replacement or fertilizer application. For example, negative soil nutrient<br />

balances have been reported for each of the 15 agro-climatic regions of India (Biswas and Tewatia, 1991;<br />

Tandon, 1992).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

295<br />

in Asia


Problems are also caused by imbalances in fertilizer application. Fertilizer use in the region is often<br />

dominated by nitrogen (N), relative to phosphorous (P) and potassium (K). This trend originated in the<br />

earlyyears of the ‘green revolution’. When fertilizers are first applied to a soil, a high response is frequently<br />

obtained from nitrogen. The improved crop growth depletes the soil of other nutrients; “In such systems,<br />

nitrogen is simply used as a shovel to mine the soil of other nutrients” (Tandon, 1992). Long-term experiments<br />

in India show depletion of soil P and K is higher for plots with N fertilizer, and depletion of K is higher still with<br />

N+P fertilizer (Tandon, 1992). The use of N fertilizer in Indonesia has been continually increasing since the late<br />

1960s, reaching 2.4 million Mg yr -1 in 2012. However, the consumption of P and K has not followed the same<br />

trend (IFADATA, 2007). This is partly due to the fact that N fertilizers are cheaper and more accessible, and<br />

also to the rapid crop response to N fertilization. A study on nutrient balances in rice fields under intensive<br />

cultivation found a positive balance for N, P, Ca, Mg and Na, but a negative balance for K and Si (Husnain,<br />

Masunaga and Wakatsuki, 2010).<br />

For secondary nutrients and micronutrients, an increasing incidence of sulphur and zinc deficiency<br />

is occurring in the region. Sulphur deficiency has been reported for India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and zinc<br />

deficiency for India and Pakistan (FAO/RAPA, 1992). For Bangladesh, 3.9 million ha are reported to be deficient<br />

in sulphur and 1.75 million ha in zinc, including areas of continuous swamp rice cultivation (Bangladesh,<br />

1992; Shaheed, 1992). Because of its generally alkaline soils, Pakistan is particularly liable to micronutrient<br />

deficiencies (Twyford, 1994).<br />

On the other hand, nutrient additions to many fields in some Asian countries far exceed those in the United<br />

States and Northern Europe, and much of the excess fertilizer is lost to the environment, degrading both air<br />

and water quality. This important threat to soil is described more in detail in Section 10.4.4.<br />

10.3.9 | Compaction<br />

Slightly compacted soil conditions are conducive to soil productivity as they reduce soil erosion and<br />

maintain soil structure. Highly compacted soil is, however, a physically deteriorated condition affecting<br />

plant productivity under various land uses. Decrease in soil porosity that affects water content, hydraulic<br />

conductivity and gas permeability is a major disadvantage brought about by soil compaction. Loading of<br />

heavy equipment strongly compresses surface soil and/or subsoil in cropland, grassland and timber forests.<br />

Mechanization of cultivation and harvest in Asian countries has increased, resulting in soil erosion and soil<br />

compaction due to tractor loading (Zhang et al., 2006). Some studies of soils in rice/wheat cropping areas of<br />

India showed increases in compactness of subsurface soils as indicated by increased bulk density as high as<br />

1.80 g cm -3 . This was due to the use of heavy machinery in conjunction with puddling activities (Sidhu et al.,<br />

2014; Singh, Jalota and Sharma, 2009; Aggarwal et al., 1995; Kukal and Aggarwal, 2003). Heavy machines for<br />

harvesting and skidding logs also compress soils considerably, and may be accompanied by rutting on the<br />

ground and by removal of organic matter (Kozlowski, 1999; Hattori et al., 2013). The increase in the area of<br />

plantation forests in Asia, which has been especially rapid in China in recent decades (FAO, 2006), has led<br />

to compaction of soils through the use of heavy equipment for management. Livestock trampling is also a<br />

major cause of surface soil compaction in grassland and hilly grazing areas (Drewry and Paton, 2000). <strong>Soil</strong><br />

compaction due to heavy grazing has led to severe land degradation in the extensive pastoral steppe regions<br />

of Mongolia and Inner Mongolia of China (Kruemmelbein, Peth and Horn, 2008). Where soils have been<br />

compacted in agricultural and forested areas, water surface runoff followed by soil erosion is a major threat.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s in urban green areas are commonly compressed by human traffic and by vehicles for park management.<br />

This results in damage to plant roots and reduces productivity (Jim, 1998a) because in urban park vegetation<br />

over 50 percent of root density is concentrated in the top 50cm of the soil depth (Millward, Paudel and Briggs,<br />

2011). Surface runoff on compacted soil generates flooding and delivers contaminants such as heavy metals<br />

and persistent organic pollutants into receiving water environments.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

296<br />

in Asia


10.3.10 | Sealing and capping<br />

Sealing and capping on the soil surface is mainly required in urban areas to construct roads and buildings.<br />

Although the impervious surface area (ISA) covers only 0.43 percent of the global land area at present<br />

(Schneider, Friedl and Potere, 2009), ISA is constantly on the increase, as shown by satellite image data and<br />

by measures of the constant increase in urban population (Elvidge et al., 2007). More than half of the global<br />

population is now concentrated into cities. The Asia region has the largest ISA ratio in the world (Schneider,<br />

Friedl and Potere, 2009). China has the largest ISA in Asia followed by India, Indonesia, Japan and Bangladesh<br />

(Elvidge et al., 2007). Increase in the ISA causes environmental issues such as the formation of urban heat islands<br />

(Changnon, 1992), increases in surface water runoff (Booth, 1991), and reduction of carbon sequestration due<br />

to reduction of the forested area (Milesi et al., 2003).<br />

Inter-regional differences in properties of sealed soils are not well documented. However, in general,<br />

construction processes of sealing affect soils physically and chemically due to disturbance of surface and<br />

subsoil by excavation and filling, and by addition of construction materials. In Japan, very large volumes of soil<br />

are excavated everyyear for land levelling, and much of this soil is carried away to other sites. <strong>Soil</strong>s sealed by<br />

construction are compressed to enhance their physical strength, making them hugely compacted structures.<br />

Additives such as lime, which is used to enhance the sub-base strength of a road, make soils alkaline (Jim,<br />

1998b). Pervious asphalt paving and inter-locking covers for light traffic roads are now recommended to drain<br />

rainwater by infiltration to the sub-soil. However, this infiltration treatment can make soil solution and<br />

drainage water alkaline. Cracks on a paved road surface due to heavy traffic may allow rainwater to infiltrate<br />

into the subsoil, reducing the strength of the roadbed and making the sub-soil alkaline.<br />

10.4 | Major threats to soils in the region<br />

10.4.1 | Erosion<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion is one of the major threats to soil quality in Asia. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion is the action of exogenic processes<br />

such as water flow and wind to move soil from its location. The processes inducing soil erosion vary with<br />

climate. Asia can be divided into several climate zones: tropical and subtropical in South Asia, humid<br />

subtropical and temperate in East Asia, semiarid in China, and arid in Mongolia and East Asia. Most regions<br />

of Asia are affected by the Asian-Australian monsoon which causes dry and wet seasons. Water erosion is the<br />

major type of erosion in the regions of South and East Asia with alternating dry and wet seasons. On the other<br />

hand, wind is the crucial driving force inducing soil erosion in the drier and desert areas.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion by rainfall and surface water flow is generally affected by five factors: rainfall erosivity, soil<br />

erodibility, topography, surface coverage, and support practices. In humid regions, soil erosion is of little<br />

concern in well-established forests and in paddy fields. However, bare lands such as logged forests, construction<br />

areas and upland crop fields on slopes are exposed to a high risk of soil erosion. Annual soil loss in paddy fields<br />

has been generally reported in case studies to be lower than 1 tonnes ha -1 (Chen, Liu and Chen, 2012; Choi et al.,<br />

2012; Kim et al., 2013). By contrast, soil loss from upland crop areas on slopes is much greater – for example, 38<br />

million tonnes ha -1 from fields in South Korea where no conservation practices were applied (Jung et al., 2005).<br />

In semiarid regions, soil erosion is also of concern especially for slope areas with scant vegetation. In these<br />

areas, several hundred mm of rainfall in the rainy season can result in massive gully erosion. For these reasons,<br />

soil erosion is regarded as the most important threat to soil in Asia, especially for poorly-covered lands and<br />

bare soil.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

297<br />

in Asia


Major threats of soil erosion by water are found in the hilly and mountainous landscapes of Indonesia.<br />

Natural conditions, anthropogenic influences on land cover and intensive land use make the steep and<br />

densely populated islands of Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi the most threatened areas. Approaches to coping<br />

with erosion problems range from engineering measures such as terracing, sediment pit construction and<br />

waterways improvement to vegetative measures including agroforestry approaches, contour strips and cover<br />

crops (Agus and Widianto, 2004).<br />

In the Philippines, a monsoon country with high rainfall, erosion by water is one of the major causes of<br />

land degradation. In the 2013 Land Degradation Assessment final report by the Bureau of <strong>Soil</strong>s and Water<br />

Management, the estimated annual soil loss for agricultural land for the whole country based on the 2003<br />

Land Use System Map is about 61.8 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . Paningbatan (1987) estimates that soil loss of about 10<br />

tonnes ha -1 can be considered tolerable for Philippines conditions. In the 1950s, USDA (quoted by Schertz, 1983)<br />

established soil loss tolerance values for the Philippines at about 5 to 12 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 at soil bulk density<br />

of 1 200 kg m -3 . An analysis made by the Department of Environment and Natural <strong>Resources</strong> (DENR) on the<br />

state of the Philippine environment showed that, overall, 75 percent of total croplands are vulnerable to<br />

erosion of various degrees. To counter high rates of erosion, sustainable land management practices are being<br />

promoted. These include the application of various soil conservation and management strategies in highland<br />

agriculture as well as other technologies like agroforestry and multiple-storey cropping. The Philippines is<br />

a member of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the Department of Agriculture<br />

and other government agencies, academia and non-government organizations aggressively pursue various<br />

programs. These approaches seek to engage farmers as partners in development rather than treat them as<br />

the cause of the problem.<br />

In South Korea, deviation of annual precipitation was 251 mm yr -1 between 1981 and 2010 and rainfall<br />

erosivity ranged from 2 264 MJ mm ha -1 yr -1 hr -1 to 6 856 MJ mm ha -1 yr -1 hr -1 in the same period (Park et al, 2011).<br />

The national average rainfall erosivity was 4 276 mm ha -1 yr -1 with EI 30 data between 1973 and 1996 (Jung et al.,<br />

2004) and was 4 147 MJ mm ha -1 yr -1 hr -1 with EI 60 data between 1981 and 2010 (Park et al., 2011). The variation of<br />

rainfall is expected to increase with climate change based on the RCP scenario (CCIC, 2014), which implies that<br />

the probability of extreme rainfall erosivity would also increase in future. <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility in South Korea was<br />

0.027 million tonnes hr MJ -1 mm -1 and ranged from 0.001 million tonnes hr MJ -1 mm -1 to 0.102 million tonnes<br />

hr MJ -1 mm -1 with soil series. The soil erodibility of paddy fields is the greatest at 0.036 million tonnes hr MJ -1<br />

mm -1 followed by upland crop fields (0.026 million tonnes hr MJ -1 mm -1 ) and forests (0.020 million tonnes hr<br />

MJ -1 mm -1 ) (Jung et al., 2004).<br />

Differences in soil erodibility between land use types are affected by geological characteristics. Forests<br />

are located in mountains and upland crop fields are generally placed on lower slopes below the mountains.<br />

This means that forests and upland crop fields have been chronically exposed to past overland flow and soil<br />

erosion, which has resulted in their current status with less easily-eroded particles such as silt and very fine<br />

sand. By contrast, paddy fields in the bottomlands are formed from sediments with greater soil erodibility.<br />

However, actual annual soil loss in paddy fields has been generally reported to be lower than 1 Mt ha -1 in case<br />

studies because paddy is protected from rainfall by the water already ponded in the field and by the ridges<br />

which store water inside paddy fields (Chen, Liu and Chen, 2012; Choi et al.; 2012, Kim et al., 2013). Levels of soil<br />

erosion are tolerable in well-managed forests and grasslands (Kitahara et al., 2000; Lee, 1994). Where grass<br />

was sown in spring, soil loss on grasslands was found to reach only half of that from bare soil in the firstyear.<br />

Losses decreased abruptly after the second year, to only 3 percent or less of those on bare soil (Jung, 1998; Jung<br />

and Oh, 1993).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> loss from upland crop fields is much greater than from paddy fields and forests. The national average<br />

of soil loss in upland crop fields was 38 million tonnes ha -1 in South Korea (Jung et al., 2005). A variety of<br />

conservation practices have been applied to reduce soil erosion including agronomic and engineering<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

298<br />

in Asia


practices. On low slopes, agronomic practices such as mulching and grass strips can reduce soil loss by 80-90<br />

percent. Engineering practices such as terraces, channels and drop spillways can reduce soil loss on steeper<br />

slopes (Jo et al., 2009). Based on the Law of Water Quality Conservation and the Law of <strong>Soil</strong> Environment<br />

Conservation, soil erosion in South Korea has been monitored in severely eroded areas and best management<br />

practices have been proposed to regional governments and farmers.<br />

10.4.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

ASSOD describes soil organic carbon change as “a net decrease of available nutrients and organic matter<br />

in the soil”. Not all Asian countries monitor the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock and its change. Even where<br />

soil properties are monitored, some data may not be appropriate for aggregation at the country scale as they<br />

lack certain parameters such as bulk density, or the number of observations may be insufficient. However,<br />

data compiled from the literature are adequate to draw a rough sketch of SOC change in the region. Piao et<br />

al. (2012) compared three methods to estimate SOC change 1990-2009 in five East Asian countries. Using an<br />

inventory-remote sensing model approach, they concluded that the sub-region was a net ecosystem carbon<br />

sink (+0.293 Pg C yr -1 ). They found an estimated net SOC increase in the forest (+0.014 Pg C yr -1 ), shrub land<br />

(+0.022) and cropland (+0.022) and SOC decrease in the grassland (-0.003).<br />

China occupies the largest land area of the region (46 percent of the total). China reported SOC changes<br />

in the range -0.143 Pg C yr -1 to +0.094 Pg C yr -1 during 1980-2000. India occupies the second largest area (14<br />

percent of the total). In India, it is estimated that forest accumulated SOC at the rate of +0.041 Pg C yr -1 over<br />

the one hundred year period 1880 -1 981. The relevant data are listed in Table 10.1. Overall, there is a tendency<br />

towards SOC accumulation in forested areas and towards a decrease in grassland areas. To confirm these<br />

findings and allow analysis to guide future decisions, more detailed and comparable datasets for both SOC<br />

stock and change should be compiled in the region.<br />

Sub-region/Country<br />

Area<br />

M ha<br />

SOC stock<br />

Pg C<br />

SOC stock<br />

-1Mg C ha-1<br />

Mg C ha<br />

SOC change<br />

-1Pg C yr-1<br />

Pg C yr<br />

Reference<br />

East Asia<br />

sub-region<br />

Total 1990 - 2010 1156 0.055 Piao et al. (2012)<br />

Total 1980 - 2000<br />

871 89.6 102.9<br />

86.8 -0.143<br />

Xie et al. (2007)<br />

China<br />

Total 1981 - 2000<br />

760 85.8 112.9<br />

87.6 0.094<br />

Tian et al. (2011)<br />

Total 2000 101.9 0.029 Houghton and Hackler (2003)<br />

Total 0.075 Piao et al. (2009)<br />

India<br />

64.2 6.8 106.1<br />

Forest 1880 - 1981<br />

Chhabra et al. (2003)<br />

10.9 0.041<br />

Total 47.5 Velayuthum et al. (2000)<br />

Total 329 24.0 73.1 Bhattacharyya et al. (2008)<br />

Indonesia Total 183 20.8 113.4 Shofiyati et al. (2010)<br />

Japan<br />

5.4 0.44 81.8<br />

Arable land 1979 - 1998<br />

Takata (2010)<br />

5.0 0.45 89.6 0.0001<br />

Forest 1950s - 1990s 24.3 2.18 90.0 Morisada et al. (2004)<br />

Total 29.3 2.63 89.9 Takata (2010) and Morisada et al. (2004)<br />

Table 10.1 <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change in selected countries in Asia<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

299<br />

in Asia


China is a vast country – 6 percent of the global land area and 46 percent of the area of the region. Estimates<br />

in China of the totoal SOC storage in the 0 -1 00 cm soil profile show high variability, ranging from 50 to 183 Pg<br />

(Xie et al., 2007). The reasons for this variability include uncertainty about the area of croplands, the quantity<br />

of soil profiles and the methods applied for scaling up from soil profiles to a national level. Using data from<br />

the Second National <strong>Soil</strong> Survey carried out in the 1980s, Xie et al. (2014) estimated areas and SOC stocks as<br />

follows: paddy lands 29.87 million ha and 2.91 Pg C; uplands 125.89 million ha and 10.07 Pg C; forest 249.32<br />

milion ha and 34.23 Pg C; and grassland soils 278.51 million ha and 37.71 Pg C.<br />

Farmland and forests were found to have SOC sequestration rates of 23.62 and 11.72 Tg C yr –1, respectively,<br />

resulting in 0.472 and 0.234 Pg SOC respectively being accumulated in these soils during the period 1980 to<br />

2000. However, degradation of grassland depleted 3.56 Pg C over the same period. Thus during twenty years,<br />

a net amount of 2.86 Pg C was lost, approximately 3.4 percent of total SOC storage in China.<br />

With an artificial neural network model to link SOC change to six parameters - latitude, longitude,<br />

elevation, soil type, land use type, and original SOC in early 1980s - Yu et al. (2009) estimated an increase of<br />

260 Tg C occurred in Chinese cropland in the period 1980 to 2000 in the topsoils (0-20 cm). The increase of SOC<br />

content is mainly attributed to the large increase in crop yields and the increased residues retained in fields.<br />

By contrast, SOC storage in grassland is dwindling, especially in the northwest and southwest parts of China,<br />

mainly due to the degradation of grassland. Nationally, an area of 5.29 million ha grassland had degraded 1986 -<br />

1<br />

999 (Han and Gao, 2005). Unlike the grassland ecosystem, SOC storage in forestland has increased (see also<br />

above). On the forested area of 249.32 million ha, estimates of carbon sequestration range from 234 to 304 Tg<br />

SOC in the period of 1980 to 2000, mainly attributed to forest expansion and regrowth (Zhou et al., 2006; Xie<br />

et al., 2007).<br />

Other studies show conflicting results, with some showing recent Chinese soils as a net carbon sink. Tian<br />

et al. (2011) estimated SOC change using two process-based terrestrial ecosystem models with considering<br />

factors including climate change and land use change. They concluded that biomass and soils in China<br />

accumulated organic carbon at a rate of 0.121 and 0.094 Pg C yr -1 respectively from 1981 to 2000. Piao et al.<br />

(2009) adopted a bottom-up approach and showed consistent results (0.105 and 0.075 Pg C yr -1 , respectively)<br />

in the same period, while Houghton and Hackler (2003) reported net C loss from Chinese ecosystems (-0.008<br />

PgC yr -1 ) in 1990s, including loss in biomass (-0.028 Pg C yr -1 ) and net C sink in soils (0.029 Pg C yr -1 ).<br />

Velayutham and Bhattacharyya (2000) estimated soil organic C stock in different soil orders and different<br />

agro-ecological regions in India (Sehgal and Abrol, 1992). For the top 1 m depth, they estimated soil organic<br />

C stock as 47.5 PgC, which is double the previous estimates of Dadhwal and Nayak (1993) and Gupta and Rao<br />

(1994). The trend may, however, be negative as crop residues are widely used as fuel and fodder and not returned<br />

to the soil, which would result in a decrease in soil organic content. In Bangladesh, the average organic content<br />

is said to have declined by half, from 2 percent to 1 percent, over the past 20 years (Bangladesh, 1992). For the<br />

Indian State of Haryana, soil test reports over 15 years show a decrease in soil carbon (Chaudhary and Aneja,<br />

1991). Decreased organic content leads to: (i) degradation of soil physical properties, including water holding<br />

capacity, as has developed in India (Indian Council of Agricultural Research, personal communication); (ii)<br />

reduced nutrient retention capacity; and (iii) longer release of nutrients, including micronutrients, from<br />

mineralization of organic master. As a consequence of all these effects, there may be longer responses to<br />

fertilizer.<br />

The threat to soil organic carbon (SOC) change in Indonesia’s mineral and peat soils is mainly caused<br />

by deforestation, poor land management or intensive cropping, or by a combination of these factors<br />

(Hartanto et al., 2003; Lal, 2004). In lowland rice grown on mineral soils, SOC tends to be maintained or<br />

increased because of anoxic condition (Kyuma, 2004). Land use types greatly influence soil loss. Annual<br />

crop based systems where soil conservation measures are not practiced are associated with high erosion<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

300<br />

in Asia


(Valentin et al., 2008). For peatland, the threat to SOC occurs when peat forest is cleared and drained (Page,<br />

Rieley and Banks, 2011). The change from saturated to unsaturated conditions leads to the enhancement<br />

of aerobic microbial activities. This is the main factor in the SOC loss which occurs through the resulting<br />

accelerated microbial decomposition (Hooijer et al., 2014; Agus and Subiksa, 2008). Peat fire is another cause<br />

of SOC loss. Maintaining a high water table is the key to reducing SOC losses through both these pathways.<br />

More details on the loss of soil carbon in Indonesia are included in the country case study section (10.5.2).<br />

Permanent meadows and pastures area occupy 73 percent of the land area of Mongolia, while forest and<br />

arable land area account for 7 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively (FAO, 2012). During the 1990s and 2000s,<br />

the forest area decreased (loss of 8.19×102 km 2 yr -1 ), and as a result forest biomass in Mongolia has decreased<br />

at a rate of 0.004 PgC yr−1 (Piao et al., 2009). Li et al. (2005) reported net ecosystem exchange in a Mongolian<br />

steppe under grazing using the eddy covariance technique and suggested that the steppe was almost carbon<br />

neutral.<br />

Forest occupies 69 percent of the land area of Japan, while arable land and permanent meadows and<br />

pastures area account for 12 percent and 2 percent, respectively (FAO, 2012). Total SOC stock in forest area<br />

was estimated separately by Morisada, Ono and Kanomata, (2004) and Ugawa et al. (2012) using a bottomup<br />

approach but with different data sets. Morisada et al. (2004) used 3 391 soil profile data sampled from the<br />

1950s to the 1970s and calculated the weighted average SOC stock as 90 Mg C ha -1 (0-30cm) and 188 Mg C ha -1<br />

(0 -1 00cm). Ugawa et al. (2012) compiled 4 km mesh (around 3 000 profiles) data sampled from 1999 to 2003<br />

and estimated average SOC stock as 69.4 Mg C ha -1 (0-30cm). Since the Japanese forest area has changed<br />

little during the last 40 years, and has even increased slightly, the difference of SOC values between the two<br />

studies could be attributed to the difference in the methodology of sampling. Assuming the average SOC<br />

stock represented the total forest area (25.0×106 ha), total SOC stock in forest area would be in the range of 1.7<br />

to 2.2 Pg C. Takata (2010) compiled soil survey data (1979 -1 998) to calculate SOC stock in Japanese arable soils,<br />

and reported that 0.44 Pg C in 1979 increased very slightly to 0.45 Pg C, mainly due to an increase of both area<br />

and stock per unit area in grassland.<br />

10.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization and sodification<br />

As outlined above section (10.3.5), the threat of salinization/sodification in the region takes varying forms.<br />

In the semiarid and arid zones of central and west Asia, salt-affected soils are widely distributed. On the other<br />

hand, salt-affected soils are also developing in certain coastal areas in monsoon zones, caused mainly by salt<br />

water intrusion in South and Southeast Asia and by coastal tideland reclamation. Although the coastal area<br />

affected is relatively small, this could become a serious problem for lowland rice production.<br />

In the GLASOD study, the region is estimated to have 42 million ha affected by salinization, nearly all of<br />

which is located in the dry zone. Of this salinized area in the drylands, there are estimated to be approximately<br />

4 million ha in both India and Pakistan. Salinization is also a major problem on irrigated land: GLASOD<br />

estimates that 10 percent of irrigated lands in India are affected, 23 percent in Pakistan and 9 percent in Sri<br />

Lanka, although these percentages are probably overstated since some of the salinization results from saline<br />

intrusion into unirrigated land.<br />

GLASOD provides estimates of areas subject to strong salinization. These numbers are important, as by<br />

definition they refer to land abandoned and taken out of cultivation. However, there is sometimes a wide<br />

difference between GLASOD figures for strongly saline soils and country estimates, although it should be noted<br />

that some of these include naturally occurring saline soils. For India, country estimates range between 7 and<br />

26 million ha, all higher than the GLASOD value of 4 million ha. For Pakistan, there is better agreement; leaving<br />

aside three estimates of 9 -1 6 million ha, the GLASOD and six country estimates lie in the range 4-8 million ha.<br />

Two apparently independent surveys, by the <strong>Soil</strong> Survey of Pakistan and the Water and Power Development<br />

Authority, show relative agreement at 5.3 and 4.2 million ha, respectively.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

301<br />

in Asia


In Bangladesh, an extension inland of coastal soil salinity has been noted in recentyears. Lower river flows,<br />

reduced by upstream abstraction for irrigation, have proved insufficient to dilute and displace sea water. In Sri<br />

Lanka, small areas of light salinization have appeared on irrigated lands of the Mahaweli scheme; the problem<br />

has not yet reached serious proportions, but needs to be monitored.<br />

Estimates of the extent of saline soils need to be associated with the dates of survey. Through successful<br />

reclamation, the extent of saline soils has been reduced in some areas, particularly as a consequence of the<br />

series of Salinity Control and Reclamation Projects (SCARP) in Pakistan. For example in the Pakistan Punjab<br />

the area of waterlogged and saline soils, which had risen from 61 000 ha in 1960 to 68 000 in 1966, had been<br />

reduced to 23 000 ha by 1985 (Chopra, 1989).<br />

Tideland reclamation projects have been carried out for centuries on the western coast of Korea. Records<br />

show that tideland reclamation in Korea began at the Ganghwa island in Gyeonggi-Do in 1235 (the 22nd year of<br />

King Gojong, Goryeo Dynasty). Reclamation in the early years was on a small scale, but has expanded over the<br />

years. Large scale modern reclamation projects started in 1960s as part of the national development program.<br />

Some of these projects have been as substitutes for the more than 20 000 ha of farmland which have been<br />

converted each year into industrial estates or other urban purposes. Since 1945, 75 738 ha of tideland have been<br />

reclaimed for paddy fields in 185 project areas by the Korean government and private companies (Park, 2001).<br />

The main constraints to crop production on reclaimed tideland are soil salinity, a high water table with<br />

poor drainage, and an unfavorable soil chemical composition. Resalinization of the surface soil is caused by<br />

evapotranspiration during the dry season and by capillary rise of saline water from groundwater resources.<br />

High soil salinity in reclaimed tidelands needs to be managed by controlling the amount and quality of<br />

irrigation water (Jung, Joo and Yoon, 2002). <strong>Soil</strong> characteristics on reclaimed land change continuously as<br />

desalinization progresses. However, in general, newly reclaimed saline soils have poor chemical properties<br />

and weak physical soil characteristics of soil thickness, soil structure and water logging, so that it is difficult to<br />

grow crops economically (Park, 1991).<br />

10.4.4 | Nitrogen imbalance<br />

Balanced nutrient supply is essential for achieving high crop yields, but excessive or unbalanced nutrient<br />

inputs may pose risks to the environment, human health and ecosystems. Nutrient losses may occur via<br />

emission to the air or discharge to the water through runoff, leaching and erosion.<br />

Nutrient inputs in Asia vary considerably amongst countries, districts and farming systems. Nutrient inputs<br />

tend to be higher than in other regions, and the trend may continue. FAO has predicted that for the coming<br />

four decades 60 percent of the world population increase will be in Asia (FAO, 2014). Feeding this rapidly<br />

growing population while minimizing harm to the environment is of great importance for both Asia and the<br />

world. Innovations in policy, science and farming practice are urgently needed to achieve this goal.<br />

Nutrient cycles link agricultural systems to their societies and surroundings and create the need for decisions<br />

on tradeoffs. Inputs of nitrogen and other nutrients are essential for high crop yields, but downstream and<br />

downwind losses of these same nutrients diminish environmental quality and human well-being (Vitousek et<br />

al., 2009). In this section, the issue of nitrogen imbalances in agriculture in Asia is highlighted as an important<br />

threat to soil.<br />

One study found that nutrient balances differ among Asian countries, varying generally with the level of<br />

economic development (Vitousek et al., 2009). The study examined six countries representing developing<br />

(China and India), developed (Japan and South Korea) and least developed countries (Laos and North Korea).<br />

China had the highest input of nitrogen (505 kg N ha -1 of arable land), which is nearly ten times levels applied<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

302<br />

in Asia


in Laos (59 kg N ha -1 ). On the other hand, the mean N output was 108 kg N ha -1 in China, while North Korea<br />

achieved half that level (44 kg N ha -1 ). The N input was dominated by fertilizer application, especially in the<br />

booming economies of China and India, where the fertilizer N inputs accounted for 76 percent and 62 percent<br />

respectively of the total N inputs. In the least developed countries, such as Laos and North Korea, the N input<br />

mainly consists of animal manure, crop straw and biological N fixation. For developed countries, such as Japan<br />

and South Korea, the N inputs were more evenly contributed by fertilizer and manure. However, because of<br />

relatively high N input, higher N losses were observed in China, Japan and South Korea, compared with the<br />

least developed countries. The nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) was relatively high in Laos and North Korea, at<br />

the expense of depleting the soil N. The average soil N depletion rate ranged between 10–30 kg N ha -1 yr -1 in<br />

Laos and North Korea, while in China soil N accumulated by 26 kg N ha -1 yr -1 .<br />

In the least developed countries, manures were considered as precious nutrient resource for crop<br />

production. This was also the case in China before the 1980s, when artificial fertilizer was not subsidized.<br />

However, from the 1980s on, fertilizer was more widely used than manure in China. The amount of fertilizer<br />

applied in China far exceeds rates in other countries in Asia, and even exceeds rates in the United States and<br />

EU (Ju et al., 2009; Vitousek et al., 2009). In China in 2005 lack of regulation led to more than half of manure<br />

being discharged untreated to water bodies (Ma et al., 2010). By contrast, the environment is highly protected<br />

in Japan. More than 80 percent of manure is treated before being applied to crop land (Mishima, 2012). The<br />

N inputs and outputs also showed large variations between different crops. The highest nutrient inputs and<br />

accumulation in cash crop production were observed in China (Yan et al., 2013). As both livestock and cash crop<br />

production are expected to increase considerably in Asia in the future as demand rises from a fast growing and<br />

increasingly urbanized population (FAO, 2014), N use is likely to increase but there may be a more intelligent<br />

and sustainable approach to N inputs and outputs.<br />

Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) is defined by the N output as crop production divided by the N inputs that are<br />

added through fertilizer, biological N fixation and N deposition (Ma et al., 2010). In a study across Asia and the<br />

Middle East, national average NUE ranged from 131 percent in Laos to 19 percent in the United Arab Emirates.<br />

The NUE was more than 100 percent in Laos, Nepal and Myanmar, because these countries relied to<br />

a great extent on recycled N inputs such as manure and crop straw. The NUE showed a reverse trend of N<br />

surplus among countries, decreasing from high N depletion countries such as Nepal and Laos to the high N<br />

surplus countries such as the United Arab Emirates and China. None of the crop production systems were<br />

sustainable in high N depletion or surplus countries. Although lower N losses and higher NUE were observed<br />

in the least developed countries, the continuous N depletion will limit crop yields and food production. In N<br />

surplus countries, the high levels of N accumulation may lead to higher N losses and consequently to serious<br />

environmental problems (Guo et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2013).<br />

The average N losses varied among countries, from 23 kg N ha -1 yr -1 in Afghanistan to 327 kg N ha -1 yr -1 in China<br />

(Figure 10.3). This was due to the differences in N input rate, the crop production structure and the area of<br />

arable land. For a variety of reasons, large areas of arable land are not presently cultivated in Afghanistan, Iraq,<br />

Mongolia and Syria. The contribution of the different N loss pathways varied among countries, for example,<br />

ammonia emission contributed to 50 percent of the N losses in Philippines, but to only 22 percent of the N<br />

losses in Laos.<br />

In conclusion, N inputs and outputs vary considerably amongst countries in Asia, with variations mainly<br />

attributable to levels of development and to policies. The nutrient imbalance in Asia could have a large impact<br />

on crop production and on the environment. These impacts may increase in the future with the further rapid<br />

development of livestock and cash crop production. Both the N imbalance and the N losses can be improved<br />

greatly without any sacrifice of crop yield. For example, balanced N fertilizer application and maximum<br />

manure N application standards have already proved effective in the EU (Velthof et al., 2009). Recent studies<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

303<br />

in Asia


show that crop yields in China can be increased by 20-30 percent with no increase in input of fertilizer simply<br />

by using ISSM technologies (Chen et al., 2014). However, in the least developed countries increased use of<br />

fertilizer would greatly boost crop yields, as has happened in China during the past 30 years. For the developed<br />

countries, promoting mixed crop and livestock production systems could be the best choice to mitigate<br />

nutrient losses<br />

Figure 10.3 Nitrogen surplus or depletion, and nutrient use efficiency in crop production in Asia and the Middle East in 2010.<br />

10.5 | Case studies<br />

10.5.1 | Case study for India<br />

The area of India is 328.2 million ha, of which 141 million ha is under cultivation. The country is bordered by<br />

the Arabian Sea in the west, the Bay of Bengal in the east, and the Himalayas in the north. Physiographically,<br />

India is divided into four broad divisions: (i) Himalayan Range (Northern Mountains); (ii) Hill regions, Indian<br />

Peninsula and Eastern Plateau; (iii) the great Indo-Gangetic Plains and Coastal Plains; and (iv) the Islands<br />

(Singh, 1971). India is endowed with diverse climates and there are three distinct main seasons (rainy, winter<br />

and summer). The country is influenced by monsoonal type climate and rainfall. Annual rainfall varies from<br />

less than 100 mm in the cold desert area of Jammu & Kashmir, Lahaul Spiti and the Thar Desert of Rajasthan<br />

to over 11 000 mm in Cherrapunji in Meghalaya. Mean annual temperatures in the country vary from 8 to<br />

28°C. Variation in the mean summer and mean winter temperature in the northern region is


Sub-Regions. Inceptisols are the dominant soils covering 39.75 percent of the total area, followed by Entisols<br />

(28.08 percent), Alfisols (13.55 percent), Vertisols (8.52 percent), Aridisols (4.28 percent), Ultisols (2.51 percent),<br />

Mollisols (0.4 percent) and others (2.92 percent) (Bhattacharyya et al., 2013).<br />

Degraded and wastelands of India<br />

Velayutham and Bhattacharyya (2000) reported that the total area subject to soil degradation in India is 45.9<br />

percent. Of this, 37.0 percent is affected by water erosion, followed by wind erosion (4.0 percent), salinization<br />

(2.2 percent), loss of nutrients (1.1 percent) and waterlogging (1.6 percent). Land not fit for agriculture (icecaps,<br />

salt-flats, arid mountain and rock outcrops) constitutes 5.5 percent of the total area. About 27.5 percent<br />

of soils have no degradation problem and the remaining 9.8 percent of the area is classed as ‘stable terrain’,<br />

e.g. natural conditions. Recently the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) inventoried the soil<br />

degradation status of the country based on reconciliation of databases gathered from different organizations<br />

(Figure 10.4 and Table 10.2). This confirmed that soil erosion by water is the most serious threat, affecting 82.57<br />

percent of the total area, followed by wind erosion (12.40 percent), acidic soils (17.94 percent), salt-affected<br />

soils (6.74 percent), waterlogged soils (0.88 percent) and mining and industrial waste (0.19 percent).<br />

Figure 10.4 Degradation and wastelands map of India. Source: ICAR and NAAS, 2010.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

305<br />

in Asia


Open forest<br />

Degradation type<br />

Arable land (million ha)<br />

(10 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 )<br />

73.27 9.30<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Loss Map of<br />

India–CSWCR&TI<br />

Wind erosion (Aeolian) 12.40 –<br />

Wind Erosion Map of<br />

India–CAZRI<br />

Chemical degradation<br />

Sub-total 85.67 9.30<br />

Exclusively<br />

salt- affected soils #<br />

Salt-affected and<br />

water eroded soils<br />

5.44<br />

1.20 0.10<br />

Salt-Affected <strong>Soil</strong>s<br />

Map of India, CSSRI,<br />

NBSS&LUP, NRSA and<br />

others<br />

Exclusively acidic soils<br />

5.09 -<br />

(pH< 5.5) #<br />

Acid <strong>Soil</strong> Map of India<br />

NBSS&LUP Acidic<br />

(pH < 5.5) and water<br />

Acidic soils (pH< 5.5)<br />

and eroded soils<br />

5.72 7.13<br />

Physical degradation<br />

Sub-total 17.45 7.23<br />

Mining and industrial<br />

waste<br />

0.19<br />

Wasteland Map of<br />

India–NRSA<br />

Waterlogging<br />

(permanent surface<br />

0.88<br />

inundation) $<br />

Sub total 1.07<br />

Total 104.19 16.53<br />

Grand total<br />

(arable land and open forest)<br />

120.72<br />

Table 10.2 Harmonized area statistics of degraded and wastelands of India. Source: ICAR and NAAS, 2010.<br />

Notes: FSI (1999) was used to exclude degraded land under dense forest; Unculturable Wastelands: Barren rocky/stony waste: 6 M ha, are the source for<br />

runoff water and building material; Snow covered/Ice-caps: 6 M ha, are best source of water and are not treated as wastelands<br />

#For acid soils, areas under paddy growing and plantation crops were also included in the total acid soils<br />

$<br />

Sub-surface waterlogging not considered.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

306<br />

in Asia


10.5.2 | Case study for Indonesia<br />

Topography, climate, soil parent materials and anthropogenic factors determine the various types and<br />

degree of soil threats in Indonesia. These threats include soil carbon depletion both for mineral and organic<br />

soils, erosion by water, soil contamination, soil acidification and nutrient imbalance. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon<br />

depletion in peat is the most significant threat.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion threats are found in almost all hilly and mountainous landscapes of the Indonesian archipelago<br />

due to the very high (>2000 mm) annual rainfall over most of the area (83 percent). Most other sloping areas<br />

with lower rainfall are also affected by erosion due to the high intensity of the monsoonal rainfall during the<br />

rainy season (Agus, Amien and Sutono, 2002). Besides causing erosion, the high rainfall also leads to leaching<br />

of basic cations and hence to soil acidification. The main problems associated with managing acid soil are low<br />

pH, P-fixation, low basic cation concentration, low cation exchange capacity (CEC) and toxicity of soluble Al<br />

and Fe.<br />

The total area of Indonesian acid upland soils (pH


palm fronds increased SOC, especially in the 20 percent of the plantation area receiving an equivalent of 4.8<br />

Mg C ha -1 yr -1 from palm fronds (Haron et al., 1998). If degraded land is converted to plantation, it was found<br />

to gain about 30 percent SOC stock (Murty et al., 2002; Germer and Sauerborn, 2008). In East Kalimantan,<br />

natural regeneration from Imperata grassland to secondary forest increased soil carbon content by 14 percent,<br />

from 14.5 g kg -1 to 16.5 g kg -1 (van der Kamp, Yassir and Buurman, 2009). In Java, agricultural top soil with<br />

continuous rice cropping accumulated more than 1.7 Tg C per year over the period of 1990-2000 (Minasny<br />

et al., 2012). Kyuma (2004) also suggested that SOC in newly established paddy rice soils tends to increase<br />

with time. Strategies to increase the soil carbon pool include soil restoration and woodland regeneration, notill<br />

farming, cover crops, nutrient management, manuring and sludge application, improved grazing, water<br />

conservation and harvesting, and efficient irrigation (Lal, 2003).<br />

The loss of carbon from organic soils<br />

Indonesian peatland is estimated to cover about 14.9 million ha (Ritung et al., 2011). It is a massive store<br />

of carbon, storing around 27 Pg C (Agus et al., 2013). This huge C store is formed under saturated condition<br />

in concave areas with the annual rate of peat formation in the range of 0-3 mm thickness (Noor, 2001) or<br />

equivalent to zero to about 1.5 Mg C ha yr -1 carbon accumulation (Agus and Subiksa, 2008; Parish et al., 2007).<br />

This relatively slow process has led to the formation of peat domes that began between 6 800 and 4 200 years<br />

ago (Andriesse, 1994). Some formations may be as old as 26 000 years (Page et al., 2002).<br />

Carbon stock in peat ranges from 420 to 820 Mg C ha -1 . Peat depths range from 0.5m to over 10 m (Agus,<br />

Hairiah and Mulyani, 2011) and the peat C stock is strongly determined by peat thickness (Warren et al., 2012).<br />

Under saturated natural conditions, peat C is slowly emitted in the forms of CO 2<br />

and CH 4<br />

due to anaerobic<br />

microbial activities. As peat forest is cleared and drained, the peats become unsaturated and CO 2<br />

emission<br />

escalates at a pace far exceeding the rate of sequestration. Currently, from the 14.9 million ha classified as<br />

peatland, forested areas amount to just over half (52 percent), shrub cover is about 21.7 percent, and the rest<br />

is under agriculture or settlements. Peat soil C loss runs in parallel to the level of local development. Peatland<br />

areas of Sumatra and Kalimantan have been drained on a wide scale, and hence are fast losing carbon. On the<br />

other hand, Papua peatlands are mostly conserved (Figure 10.5).<br />

The major processes of carbon loss from drained peatland are (i) peat decomposition under aerobic<br />

condition and (ii) peat fire. Natural phenomena such as lengthy droughts aggravate peat fire risks (Page et al.,<br />

2002; IPCC, 2014; Parish et al., 2007; Agus and Subiksa, 2008; Wosten et al., 2008).<br />

The literature varies in its estimates of peat carbon loss through decomposition. One source (IPCC, 2014),<br />

based on research data from Malaysia and Indonesia, presented peat CO 2<br />

-C emission factors based on land<br />

cover classes. In this study, degraded forest is expected to emit as much as 5.3 Mg CO 2<br />

-C ha -1 yr -1 , while various<br />

agricultural and forestry uses emit a wide range of CO 2<br />

-C as shown in Table 10.3. The 95 percent confidence<br />

interval was very wide for each land cover class, which suggests the need for site specific emission factors. A<br />

case study in Riau Province (Husnain et al., 2014) showed insignificant differences in peat emissions under an<br />

oil palm plantation, an Acacia plantation, a secondary forest and a rubber plantation. The emission rates were<br />

18.0 ± 6.8; 16.1 ± 5.3; 16.6 ± 6.8; 14.2 ± 4.6 Mg CO 2<br />

-C ha -1 yr -1 , respectively. For bare land sites, the rates measured<br />

lay between 15.2 ± 8.2 and 18.2 ± 6.5 Mg CO 2<br />

-C ha -1 yr -1 . The findings of other studies (Marwanto and Agus, 2014;<br />

Dariah, Marwanto and Agus, 2014) were similar to those of the IPCC (2014), with emissions from oil palm<br />

plantations on peat soils of about 10 to 11 Mg CO 2<br />

-C ha -1 yr -1 .<br />

A study in Central Kalimantan Province revealed a linear relationship between average water table depth<br />

and peat CO 2<br />

emission. Degraded drained forest was found to emit about 2.7 Mg CO 2<br />

-C ha -1 yr -1 in areas with<br />

zero mean water table depth, and about 15 Mg CO 2<br />

-C ha -1 yr -1 for areas where average water table depth<br />

was 1 m (Hooijer et al., 2014). Regardless of the variations found amongst the studies, the values recorded<br />

demonstrate rapid carbon depletion in drained peatland.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

308<br />

in Asia


Peat fire is another important process that may cause a huge amount of carbon loss in a short period of<br />

time, and the literature is in agreement on the importance of peat fire as one of the main causes of peat<br />

carbon loss (Page et al., 2002; Hooijer et al., 2014). However, determination of peat C loss through peat fire is<br />

a future research challenge, especially with regards to gathering firm data, for example on the volume (area<br />

and depth) of burnt scars (IPCC, 2014).<br />

Land cover type 1<br />

Drained forest land<br />

and cleared forest land<br />

(shrubland)<br />

Plantations, drained,<br />

unknown or long<br />

rotations<br />

Plantations, drained,<br />

short rotations,<br />

e.g. acacia<br />

Plantations, drained,<br />

oil palm<br />

Plantations, shallowdrained<br />

(typically less<br />

than 0.3 m), typically<br />

used for agriculture,<br />

e.g. sago palm<br />

Cropland and fallow,<br />

drained<br />

Cropland, drained,<br />

paddy rice<br />

Emission<br />

(Mg CO 2<br />

-C ha -1 yr -1 )<br />

95 percent Confidence level 2<br />

(Mg CO 2<br />

-C ha -1 yr -1 )<br />

5.3 -0.7 9.5<br />

15 10 21<br />

20 16 24<br />

11 5.6 17<br />

1.5 -2.3 5.4<br />

14 6.6 26<br />

9.4 -0.2 20<br />

Grassland, drained 9.6 4.5 17<br />

Table 10.3 Emission factors of drained tropical peatland under different land uses and the 95 percent confidential interval. Source:<br />

IPCC, 2014.<br />

1) Emission of primary peat forest is assumed to be zero.<br />

2) Some confidence intervals contain negative values because calculation was based on error propagation of uncertainties.<br />

However, all underlying CO 2<br />

fluxes were positive.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

309<br />

in Asia


Figure 10.5 Indonesian peatland map overlaid with land cover map as of 2011. Source: Wahyunto et al., 2014.<br />

10.5.3 | Case study for Japan<br />

The islands which make up Japan are located in the one of the most active parts of the Circum-Pacific Ring<br />

of Fire. The major islands are Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu. There are 110 active volcanoes in Japan<br />

(16 volcanoes in Hokkaido, 38 volcanoes in Honshu and 11 volcanoes in Kyushu). Large quantities of tephras<br />

from volcanoes have been deposited on the Pleistocene terraces, constituting a main parent material of<br />

Japanese soil (Andosols). Japan’s total land area is about 378 000 km 2 . About 72 percent of Japan’s land area is<br />

mountainous, and rivers are characterized by their steep gradients and relatively short lengths. About twothirds<br />

of the total land area consists of forest. The plains cover only about 28 percent of the total land area.<br />

Most plains are located along the seacoast. Arable lands account for 12.1 percent of the total land surface,<br />

mainly distributed in the plains. The climate of Japan is influenced by a monsoonal flow that carries moist air<br />

from the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean. In general, Japan has four distinct seasons: spring (March to May),<br />

summer (June to August), autumn (September to November) and winter (December to February).<br />

Japan’s arable land covers 4.5 million ha, with paddy fields accounting for just over half the area (54 percent).<br />

Grey lowland soils (Fluvic Hydragric Anthrosols or Gleyic Fluvisols (FAO/IUSS/ISRIC, 2006) comprise the largest<br />

cultivated soil area; followed by Gley soils (Gleyic Fluvisols), Andosols (Aluandic or Silandic Andosols), Brown<br />

forest soils (Haplic Cambisols), Brown lowland soils (Haplic Fluvisols), and Wet Andosols (Gleyic Andosols).<br />

Urban sprawl and other changes in land use (including abandonment of cultivation) led to a shrinking of the<br />

agricultural land area by about 1 million ha between 1973 and 2001. Urbanization and consequent soil sealing<br />

advanced into flat lowland areas, largely into paddy fields on Grey Lowlands soils and Gley soils. In addition,<br />

loss of Andosols to expanding urbanization was widely observed over the flat upland fields in the middle part of<br />

Hunshu islands. By contrast, upland fields on steep slopes in the western part of Japan, largely on distributed<br />

Brown Forest <strong>Soil</strong>s, were simply abandoned (Takata et al., 2011b).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

Spatio-temporal variations in soil organic carbon (SOC) content in arable land were evaluated by both<br />

model-based (Yagasaki and Shirato, 2014) and monitoring-based (Takata, 2010) approaches. In the modelbased<br />

approach, SOC stock change was simulated using the original Rothamsted Carbon model (Coleman<br />

and Jenkinson, 1996) and two modified Rothamsted Carbon models (Shirato, Yagasaki and Nishida, 2011;<br />

Takata et al., 2011a). The rate of change in the total SOC stock in Japanese agricultural lands evaluated with<br />

10year intervals was estimated to be -0.95 Tg C yr -1 between 1980 and 1990. A greater loss of SOC, equal to -1.06<br />

Tg C yr−1, was found subsequently for the period from 1990 to 2000.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

310<br />

in Asia


An agricultural soil monitoring project named ‘Basic <strong>Soil</strong>-Environmental Monitoring in Japan’ has been<br />

conducted since 1979. This soil monitoring project has taken readings at repeated five year intervals at about<br />

20 000 fixed points. The rate of change in the total SOC stock evaluated by this monitoring was 2.3 Tg C yr -<br />

1<br />

from 1979 to 1989. The project found that SOC increased in arable land. However, the monitoring detected a<br />

greater loss of SOC for a later period (1989-1998), equal to -2.3 Tg C yr−1. During this period, the agricultural<br />

land area decreased from 5.4 to 5.0 million ha. At the same time, soil carbon content in arable land gradually<br />

rose from 88 to 90 tonnes C ha -1 . These results indicated that the decline of SOC stock in Japanese arable land<br />

1989-1998 was mainly influenced by the fluctuation in the arable land area.<br />

Spatial variation of SOC content in forest soils has been monitored since 2005. The mean SOC content of<br />

forest soil at 0-30cm was 69.4 tonnes C ha -1 (Ugawa et al., 2012), lower than the value of 90 tonnes C ha -1 in<br />

arable land.<br />

Heavy metal contamination<br />

Rapid industrialization in Japan during the 1960s polluted arable soil with heavy metals such as cadmium<br />

(Cd), Copper (Cu), and Arsenic (As). There were four main pollution sources: mining activity, factories<br />

and incinerators, fertilizer, and precipitation and irrigation water (Makino, 2010). In 1970, the Japanese<br />

government enacted the Agricultural Land <strong>Soil</strong> Pollution Prevention Law to regulate heavy metal pollution.<br />

The law designated Cd, As, and Cu as hazardous substances to be regulated. The allowable limitation of Cd<br />

was set in terms of the Cd concentration in rice grains (1 mg kg -1 ). The allowable limitations on As and Cu were<br />

set to 15 (1M HCl soluble) and 125 (0.1M HCl soluble) mg kg -1 soil, respectively. The amount of bioavailable Cd<br />

in soil is affected by many factors, so setting an allowable concentration in terms of the soil Cd content is<br />

impractical (Asami, 1981). The area of polluted arable land was assessed as 7 592 ha (Cd, 7 050 ha; Cu, 1 405 ha;<br />

As, 391 ha). About 92 percent of the total polluted area has been remediated by uncontaminated soil dressing<br />

(MOE, 2014).<br />

Radioactive Cs contamination<br />

As a result of the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station (FDNPS) operated by the<br />

Tokyo Electric Power Company, radioactive cesium (Cs) was released into the surrounding environment. To<br />

determine the extent of decontamination required in arable land and to consider management options, the<br />

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery (MAFF) surveyed and measured soil Cs concentrations in 3 461<br />

agricultural fields, and used these data to construct a distribution map of radioactive Cs concentration in<br />

agricultural soil in eastern Japan (Takata et al., 2014). The distribution map of radioactive Cs concentration in<br />

agricultural soil is shown in Figure 10.6.<br />

Contamination level 4 (>25 000 Bq kg -1 ) was observed only in a 20 km evacuation area (EA) surrounding<br />

FDNPS (EA-20km) and the Deliberate Evacuation Area (DEA); 77 percent of the level 4 areas were observed<br />

in the EA-20km. Farmers of level 4 contaminated fields were advised to solidify their topsoil with a fixation<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

311<br />

in Asia


Fukushima<br />

Legend<br />

(Bq kg -1 )<br />

0 - 500<br />

500 - 1000<br />

1000 - 5000<br />

5000 - 10000<br />

10000 - 25000<br />

25000 - 50000<br />

50000<<br />

Figure 10.6 Distribution map of radioactive Cs concentration in soil in Fukushima prefecture (reference date of 5 November, 2011).<br />

Source: Takata et al., 2014.<br />

agent to prevent scattering of contaminated soil during a topsoil removal operation. Contamination level 3<br />

(10 000–25 000 Bq kg -1 ), which indicated a need to remove topsoil, was distributed in only the EA-20km and<br />

DEA, with more than half (55 percent) in the EA-20km. Eighty percent of fields with contamination level 2<br />

(5 000–10 000 Bq kg-1) were distributed in the evacuation zone, with the remaining 20 percent distributed<br />

in the non-evacuation zone in Fukushima Prefecture. Paddy fields with contamination level 2 (2 100 ha) have<br />

three options for decontamination: topsoil removal, fine-textured topsoil removal using water, and topsoil<br />

burying. Upland fields, orchards, and meadows that are at contamination level 2 (1 200 ha) have two options<br />

for decontamination: topsoil removal and topsoil burying.<br />

Nutrient imbalance<br />

The soil surface nitrogen (N) and phosphate (P) balance in Japanese arable land has been improving<br />

(Mishima, Endo and Kohyama, 2010a; 2010b). These values serve as the index of the impact of arable land<br />

on the environment and of the farm-gate balance of nutrients. The soil surface N (and P) balance is defined<br />

as the total N (P) input (N kg ha -1 ) minus the total N (P) output (N kg ha -1 ). Chemical fertilizer application in<br />

Japan declined continuously during the period from 1985 to 2005. The application rate of livestock manure<br />

also peaked in 1990 and declined thereafter. Crop production, however, remained constant during this period.<br />

Between 1985 and 2005, the surplus N and P (positive value of soil surface N balance) declined from 89.9 to 49.3<br />

kg N ha -1 and from 153 to 105 kg P ha -1 respectively (Mishima, Endo and Kohyama, 2010a; 2010b). However, this<br />

trend was not consistent at the regional level because organic amendment applications were largely related<br />

to the availability and movement of livestock excreta (Mishima, Endo and Kohyama, 2010a) and to soil type<br />

(Leon et al., 2012). High surplus P and low crop P uptake compared with N, P input for crop production could be<br />

reduced. This limited negative environmental effects such as eutrophication of soil and water and conserved<br />

limited P resources.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

312<br />

in Asia


The Basic <strong>Soil</strong>-Environmental Monitoring Project found excess soil Ca in paddy fields, upland fields and<br />

orchards during 1979-1998 (MAFF, 2008), but also a gradual increase in soil Mg deficit over the same period.<br />

Thus the balance of Ca and Mg has been deteriorating in Japanese arable land. In addition, the soil pH of paddy<br />

fields gradually decreased from 5.8 to 5.7 1979-1998 (MAFF, 2008).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

Spatial estimation of soil loss from arable land at national scale was carried out using the Universal <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Loss Equation (USLE) and environmental inventories (Kohyama et al., 2012). Hourly rainfall and runoff factors<br />

(R: resolution 1 km) were calculated by the amount of precipitation analysed by radar-AMeDAS. Topographic<br />

factors (LS) are shown in Figure 10.7, calculated using a digital elevation model (resolution 50 m) and ALOS<br />

satellite imagery. The soil erodibility factor (K) of arable land was calculated using the physico-chemical<br />

soil properties (soil texture, soil organic matter content, etc.) as measured in the Basic <strong>Soil</strong>-Environmental<br />

Monitoring Project (Taniyama, 2003). The K factor of arable land was determined by soil series groups. The<br />

K factor was relatively higher in clayey lowland soil group than in humic Andosol groups. The cover and<br />

management factor (C) of each crop was determined by Taniyama (2003), and was delineated using the agroenvironmental<br />

census data map (Kohyama et al., 2003).<br />

0-­‐4<br />

5-­‐9<br />

10-­‐14<br />

15-­‐19<br />

20-­‐24<br />

25-­‐29<br />

30-­‐34<br />

35-­‐40<br />

40-­‐<br />

0-­‐20<br />

20-­‐40<br />

40-­‐60<br />

60-­‐<br />

Topographic factor (LS) <strong>Soil</strong> erodibility factor (LS; kg h MJ -­‐1 mm -­‐1 )<br />

0-­‐0.1<br />

0.1-­‐0.2<br />

0.2-­‐0.3<br />

0.3-­‐<br />

I<br />

II<br />

III<br />

IV<br />

V<br />

VI<br />

Non-­‐arable land<br />

Cover and management factor (C)<br />

ClassificaBon of esBmated soil loss <br />

venerdì 20 novembre 15<br />

Figure 10.7 Distribution map of the parameters of USLE and classification of estimated soil loss. Class I: less than 1 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ;<br />

Class II: 1-5 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; Class III: 5-10 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; Class IV: 10-30 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; Class V: 30-50 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 ; Class VI: more<br />

than 50 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . Source: Kohyama et al., 2012.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

313<br />

in Asia


Loss of soil in Japanese arable land was categorized into six classes: Class I; less than 1 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 , Class<br />

II; 1-5 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 , Class III; 5-10 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 , Class IV; 10-30 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 , Class V; 30-50 tonnes ha -1 yr -<br />

1<br />

, Class VI; more than 50 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . The proportion of soils in these classes was: 43 percent in Class I; 18<br />

percent in Class II; 9 percent in Class III; 12 percent in Class IV; 5 percent in Class V; and 14 percent in Class VI.<br />

Highly erodible zones were mainly distributed in areas of western Japan which are characterized by complex<br />

topography and heavy precipitation.<br />

10.5.4 | Case study of greenhouse gas emissions from paddy fields<br />

Rice is the staple crop for the majority of the world’s population. In Asia, rice cultivation areas roughly<br />

account for 89 percent of the global total (Yan, Akimoto and Ohara, 2003). While rice production is thus<br />

vital for feeding the world’s population, it is also an important source of greenhouse gas emissions, notably<br />

methane (CH 4<br />

) and nitrous oxide (N 2<br />

O). CH 4<br />

is converted from substrate by methanogenic bacteria in strictly<br />

anaerobic environments, while N 2<br />

O is an intermediate production of nitrification and denitrification. Both<br />

of these two gases possess considerably greater infrared absorbing capability than carbon dioxide (CO 2<br />

) on a<br />

mass basis: 25 times for CH 4<br />

and 298 times for N 2<br />

O.<br />

Using the tier 1 method described in the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines<br />

for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006), and country-specific estimates of rice harvest area and<br />

data on agricultural activities, Yan and colleagues estimated that global CH 4<br />

emission for 2000 was 25.6 Tg<br />

CH 4<br />

yr -1 , with a 95 percent uncertainty range of 14.8 to 41.7 Tg CH 4<br />

yr -1 , considerably lower than earlier estimates<br />

(Yan et al., 2009). Rice paddies in monsoon Asia countries contributed far and away the largest share of these<br />

emissions, estimated at 23.7 Tg CH 4<br />

yr -1 . China, with an amount of 7.41 Tg CH 4<br />

yr -1 , was estimated to be the<br />

largest CH 4<br />

emission country, followed by India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar and Thailand. The<br />

areas with the greatest emission intensity were the delta regions of large rivers in Bangladesh, Myanmar and<br />

Vietnam, the island of Java in Indonesia, central Thailand, southern China and the southwestern portion of<br />

the Korean peninsula (Figure 10.8).<br />

CH 4<br />

emission from rice fields is the net result of three processes: production, oxidation and transport.<br />

Three main factors affect one or more of these processes: organic amendment, the water regime during<br />

the rice-growing season, and water status in pre-season. Appropriate agricultural management of organic<br />

amendments and the water regime should therefore be promoted to mitigate CH 4<br />

emissions. Techniques<br />

could include off-season straw incorporation and midseason drainage (Yan et al., 2009).<br />

Unlike CH 4<br />

, N 2<br />

O emission from rice paddies has been found to be much lower than from upland crops,<br />

because under a flooded environment, nitrification is weak and denitrification proceeds to the end step<br />

with N 2<br />

as the dominant product. The majority of N 2<br />

O emissions from rice paddies usually occur shortly after<br />

the mid-season drainage and nitrogen fertilizer additions (Yan et al., 2000). The availability of substrates<br />

and soil moisture condition are critical controlling factors for N 2<br />

O emission since they affect the activity of<br />

nitrifiers and denitrifiers. The fertilizer-induced N 2<br />

O emission factor for rice fields averages approximately 0.3<br />

percent, probably fluctuating dependent on the water regime (Akiyama, Yagi and Yan, 2005). Mitigation of<br />

N 2<br />

O emissions from paddy fields should also not be overlooked because of the excessive nitrogen fertilizer<br />

consumption by rice production. Since a tradeoff relationship between CH 4<br />

and N 2<br />

O emissions from rice<br />

paddies is frequently observed, any mitigation options pursued should take their comprehensive global<br />

warming potential fully into account.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

314<br />

in Asia


Figure 10.8 Estimate CH 4<br />

emission from rice paddy in Asia. Source: Yan et al., 2009.<br />

10.6 | Conclusion<br />

In Asia, management of land and water resources has been identified as one of the priority ways to<br />

achieve sustainable food security by raising land productivity, reversing land degradation and water loss, and<br />

increasing biodiversity and the quality of the environment. Asian countries have also committed themselves<br />

to strengthening regional cooperation and national capacities to develop a more integrated approach to the<br />

management of natural resources. An integrated approach is needed to improve the ability of countries to<br />

plan and monitor the better use and management of their land resources to increase agricultural productivity<br />

while maintaining land and environmental quality.<br />

However, since the GLASOD and ASSOD projects of the 1980s and 1990s, no extended assessment of the<br />

status of soil resources has been carried out in the region. There have been extensive scientific communications<br />

amongst experts in the region, including the activities of the East and Southeast Asia Federation of <strong>Soil</strong> Science<br />

Societies (ESAFS). Based on the above finding, a provisional assessment is made of the status and trend of the<br />

10 soil threats in order of importance for the region. At the same time an indication is given of the reliability of<br />

these estimates (Table 10.4).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

315<br />

in Asia


However, a number of the country reports that contributed to this chapter emphasized that rapid socioeconomic<br />

change and resulting changes in land use and its management, as well as climate change, have<br />

had great impacts on the soil resources in Asian countries. Therefore, there is a need to conduct a new and<br />

extensive assessment of changes in soil resources in the region.<br />

Responding to this need, a regional conference on soil information was held in Nanjing, China, on<br />

February 2012 to share the latest soil information and knowledge about advanced science and technologies<br />

on soil resources in Asian region. The conference recognized the benefits to be gained from further sharing<br />

of information and data on soil surveys, soil mapping and capacity development. The conference saw the<br />

establishment of the initial Asia <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership (ASP) and the signing of the Nanjing Communiqué (GSP,<br />

2012), which put the following goals as the priorities:<br />

1. sharing and transferring soil knowledge and new technology within and beyond the region<br />

2. providing soil information to all those with an interest in the sustainable use of soil and land resources<br />

3. building consistent and updated Asian soil information systems and starting to contribute to the global<br />

soil information system through initiatives such as Global<strong>Soil</strong>Map.net<br />

4. training new generations of experts in soil science and land management<br />

After the endorsement of the global Plans of Action in GSP, the next step in the Asian Region is the<br />

development of the regional implementation plan for sustainable soil management, which can translate the<br />

plans in the Nanjing Communiqué into practice.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

316<br />

in Asia


Threat<br />

to soil<br />

function<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

Organic<br />

carbon<br />

change<br />

Salinisation<br />

and<br />

sodification<br />

Nutrient<br />

imbalance<br />

Contamination<br />

Summary<br />

Serious water erosion occurs<br />

in regions with dry and wet<br />

seasons covering South Asia<br />

to East Asia, particularly in<br />

the hilly and mountainous<br />

landscapes. However, it is<br />

of little concern for wellestablished<br />

forests and<br />

paddy fields.<br />

Wind erosion is<br />

concentrated mainly in the<br />

most western and northern<br />

arid and semi-arid regions<br />

of Afghanistan, Pakistan,<br />

India, and China.<br />

Increase in crop yield retains<br />

soil organic carbon (SOC)<br />

in croplands of East and<br />

Southeast Asia. Whereas,<br />

SOC is decreasing in South<br />

Asia, because crop residues<br />

are widely used as fuel and<br />

fodder, and not returned to<br />

the soil.<br />

The degradation of<br />

grassland has caused great<br />

losses of SOC stock.<br />

The threat of salinisation/<br />

sodification in the Asia<br />

region is widespread but<br />

variable. In semiarid and<br />

arid zones of central Asia,<br />

salt-affected soils are widely<br />

distributed. On the other<br />

hand, salt- affected soils<br />

are developed in certain<br />

coastal areas in monsoon<br />

zones, mainly by salt water<br />

intrusion in South and<br />

Southeast Asia.<br />

Negative soil nutrients<br />

balances have been<br />

reported for N, P, K and<br />

micronutrients in many…”<br />

South Asian countries.<br />

Whereas, large excess of<br />

nutrients, in particular<br />

N, causes serious<br />

environmental problems in<br />

other countries.<br />

Rapid urbanization,<br />

industrialization, and<br />

intensive farming causes<br />

contamination of heavy<br />

metals (Cd, Ni, As, Pb,<br />

Zn, etc.) and pesticides in<br />

various parts of Asia, which,<br />

in turn, poses a serious risk<br />

to human health.<br />

Condition and Trend<br />

Confidence<br />

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good In condition In trend<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

317<br />

in Asia


<strong>Soil</strong> sealing<br />

and land<br />

take<br />

<strong>Soil</strong><br />

acidification<br />

Compaction<br />

Waterlogging<br />

Loss of soil<br />

biodiversity<br />

Rapid urbanization and<br />

development of mega-cites<br />

significantly increased the<br />

rate of impervious surface<br />

area (ISA). Asia region has<br />

the largest ISA within the<br />

global regions.<br />

There is substantial area<br />

of acid soils distributed in<br />

tropical and subtropical<br />

regions of Asia, mainly in<br />

Southeast Asia, parts of East<br />

and South Asia.<br />

This is mainly caused by<br />

unbalanced and unsuitable<br />

application of chemical<br />

fertilizers. Distribution<br />

of acid sulphate soils in<br />

tropical Asia also limits crop<br />

production.<br />

Mechanization of land<br />

management has increased<br />

compaction of surface<br />

soil and/or subsoil in<br />

cropland, grassland and<br />

timber forests. Increase in<br />

livestock trampling is also a<br />

major cause of surface soil<br />

compaction in grassland and<br />

hilly region.<br />

Anthropogenic activates<br />

such as poor drainage<br />

system and deforestation in<br />

the upstream areas increase<br />

the threat to waterlogging<br />

in the flood prone areas.<br />

Limited information is<br />

available for soil biodiversity<br />

in Asia. Some reports show<br />

high microbial biodiversity in<br />

the soils of organic farming<br />

lands.<br />

Table 10.4 Summary of <strong>Soil</strong> Threats Status, trends and uncertainties in Asia<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

318<br />

in Asia


References<br />

Aggarwal, G.C., Sidhu, A.S., Du, N.K., Sandhu, K.S. & Sur, H.S. 1995. Puddling and N management effects<br />

on crop response in a rice-wheat cropping system. <strong>Soil</strong> Till. Res., 36: 129-139.<br />

Agus, F. & Subiksa, I.G.M. 2008. Lahan Gambut: Potensi untuk Pertanian dan Aspek Lingkungan (Peatland: The<br />

potential for Agriculture and environmental aspects). Booklet. Indonesia, Bogor, Balai Penelitian Tanah (Indonesian<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Research Institute) & World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) SE Asia,<br />

Agus, F. & Widianto. 2004. Petunjuk praktis konservasi tanah lahan kering (Practical guidelines for upland soil<br />

conservation). Bogor, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia. 102 pp.<br />

Agus, F., Amien, L.I. & Sutono, S. 2002. Farming systems and best practices for drought-prone areas in Indonesia.<br />

Proceedings, Expert Group Consultations on Farming Systems and Best Practices for Drought Prone Areas,<br />

January 21-25, 2002. India, Hyderabad, FAO&CRIDA.<br />

Agus, F., Hairiah, K. & Mulyani, A. 2011. Measuring carbon stock in peat soils: practical guidelines. World<br />

Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program and Indonesian Centre for Agricultural Land<br />

<strong>Resources</strong> Research and Development. Indonesia. Bogor. 60 pp.<br />

Agus, F., Henson, I.E., Sahardjo, B.H., Harris, N., van Noordwijk, M. & Killeen, T.J. 2013. Review of<br />

emission factors for assessment of CO 2<br />

emission from land use change to oil palm in Southeast Asia. In T.J.<br />

Killeen & J. Goon, eds. Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), pp. 7-27. Kuala Lumpur.<br />

Ahmad, M. & Kutcher, G.P. 1992. Irrigation planning with environmental considerations: a case study of Pakistan’s<br />

Indus basin. World Bank Technical Paper 166. Washington, DC, World Bank. 196 pp.<br />

Akiyama, H., Yagi, K. & Yan, X.Y. 2005. Direct N 2<br />

O emissions from rice paddy fields: Summary of available<br />

data. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 19: GB 1005.<br />

Andriesse, J.P. 1994. Constrainsts and opportunities for alternative use options of tropical peat land. In B.Y.<br />

Aminuddin, ed. Tropical Peat. Proceedings of International Symposium on Tropical Peatland, May 6-10, 1991.<br />

Malaysia, Sarawak, Kuching.<br />

Asami, T. 1981. Maximum allowable limits of heavy metals in rice and soil. In: K. Kitagawa & I. Yamane, eds.<br />

Heavy Metal Pollution in <strong>Soil</strong>s of Japan, pp. 257–274. Tokyo, Japan Scientific Societies Press.<br />

Bangladesh. 1992. Land Degradation. Paper presented to FAO 21 st Regional Conference for Asia and the<br />

Pacific. New Delhi.<br />

Baoming, G.E., Zhang, D., Tang, B. & Zhou, C. 2014. Effect of land cover on biodiversity and composition<br />

of a soil macrofauna community in a reclaimed coastal area at Yancheng, China. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 38:<br />

229-233.<br />

Bhattacharyya, T., Pal, D.K., Mandal, C., Chandran, P., Ray, S.K., Dipak Sarkar, Velmourougane, K.,<br />

Srivastava, A., Sidhu, G.S., Singh, R.S., Sahoo, A.K., Dutta, D., Nair, K.M., Srivastava, R., Tiwary, P., Nagar,<br />

A.P. & Nimkhedkar, S.S. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong>s of India: historical perspective, classification and recent advances. Current<br />

Science, 104: 1308- 1323.<br />

Biswas, A. & Tewatia, R.K. 1991. Nutrient balance in agro-climatic regions of India - an overview. Fert. News,<br />

36(6): 13- 18.<br />

Blanchart, E. & Julka, J.M. 1997. Influence of forest disturbance on earthworm (Oligochaeta) communities<br />

in the Western Ghats (South India). <strong>Soil</strong> Biol. Biochem., 29: 303–306.<br />

Booth, D.B. 1991. Urbanization and the natural drainage system-impacts, solutions and prognoses.<br />

Northwest Environ. J., 7: 93-118.<br />

Brammer, H. & Ravenscroft, P. 2009. Arsenic in groundwater: A threat to sustainable agriculture in South<br />

and South-east Asia. Environ. Int., 35 : 647-654.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

319<br />

in Asia


CCIC. 2014. Official web site. Climate Change Information Center. (Also available at http://ccs.climate.go.kr/<br />

index.html)<br />

Chang ,T.K., Shyu, G.S., Chang, W.L., Huang, W.D., Huang, J.H., Lin, J.S. & Lin, S.C. 2007. Monitoring and<br />

investigation of heavy metal in soil of Taipei City. DEP-95-056. [In Chinese, with an English summary]<br />

Chang, T.K., Shyu, G.S., Lin, Y.P., & Chang, N.C. 1999. Geostatistical analysis of soil arsenic content in<br />

Taiwan. J. Environ. Sci. health, 34: 1485-1501.<br />

Changnon, S.A. 1992. Inadvertent weather modification in urban areas: Lessons for global climate change.<br />

Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 73: 619-627.<br />

Chaudhary, M.K. & Aneja, D.R. 1991. Impact of green revolution on long-term sustainability of land and<br />

water resources in Harayana. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 45: 428-432.<br />

Chen, S.K., Liu, C.W. & Chen, Y.R. 2012. Assessing soil erosion in a terraced paddy field using experimental<br />

measurements and universal soil loss equation. Catena, 95: 131-141.<br />

Chen, X., Cui, Z., Fan, M., Vitousek, P., Zhao, M., Ma, W., Wang, Z., Zhang, W., Yan, X., Yang, J., Deng,<br />

X., Gao, Q., Zhang, Q., Guo, S., Ren, J., Li, S., Ye, Y., Wang, Z., Huang, J., Tang, Q., Sun, Y., Peng, X., Zhang,<br />

J., He, M., Zhu, Y., Xue, J., Wang, G., Wu, L., An, N., Wu, L., Ma, L., Zhang, W. & Zhang, F. 2014. Producing<br />

more grain with lower environmental costs. Nature, 514: 486-489.<br />

Choi, D.H., Jung, J.W., Yun, K.S., Lee, K.S., Choi, W.J., Lim, S.S., Park, H.N., Yim, B.J. & Hwang, T.H. 2012.<br />

Estimation of TOC concentration using BOO, COD in runoff from paddy fields. J. Korean Soc. Water Environ., 28:<br />

813-818.<br />

Chopra, H. 1989. Land degradation: dimensions and casualties. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 44:<br />

45-54.<br />

Coleman, K. & Jenkinson, D.S. 1996. RothC-26.3 – A model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In D.S. Powlson,<br />

P. Smith& J.U. Smith, eds. Evaluation of <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Matter Models, Using Existing Long-Term Datasets, pp. 237-246.<br />

Berlin, Springer<br />

Dadhwal, V.K. & Nayak, S.R. 1993. A preliminary estimate of biogeochemical cycle of carbon for India.<br />

Science & Culture. 59: 9-13.<br />

Dariah, A., Marwanto, S. & Agus, F. 2014. Root- and peat-based CO 2<br />

emissions from oil palm plantations.<br />

Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 19: 831–843.<br />

Dibiyantoro, A.L.H. 1998. Pesticide residues on some vegetables and reductions possible by integrated<br />

pest management.. In I.R. Kennedy, J.H. Skerritt, G.I. Johnson & E. Highley, eds. Seeking Agricultural Produce<br />

Free of Pesticide Residues, pp. 374-379. Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia,<br />

February 17–19, 1998.<br />

Doi, R. & Ranamukhaarachchi, S.L. 2013. Slow restoration of soil microbial functions in an Acacia<br />

plantation established on degraded land in Thailand. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 10: 623-634.<br />

Drewry, J.J. & Paton, R.J. 2000. Effects of cattle treading and natural amelioration on soil physical<br />

properties and pasture under dairy farming in Southland, New Zealand. New Zealand Agr. Res., 43: 377-386.<br />

Edinger, E.N., Azmy, K., Diegor, W. & Siregar, P.R. 2008. Heavy metal contamination from gold mining<br />

recorded in Porites lobata skeletons, Buyat-Ratototok district, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Marine Pollution<br />

Bulletin, 56: 1553-1569.<br />

Elvidge C.D., Tuttle B.T., Sutton P.C., Baugh K.E., Howard A.T., Milesi C., Bhaduri B.L. & Nemani R. 2007.<br />

Global distribution and density of constructed impervious surfaces. Sensors, 7: 1962-1979.<br />

FAO. 2006. Global planted forests thematic study: results and analysis, by A. Del Lungo, J. Ball & J. Carle. Planted<br />

Forests and Trees Working Paper No. 38. Rome. (Also available at www.fao.org/forestry/site/10368/en).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

320<br />

in Asia


FAO. 2012. FAOSTAT. Rome, FAO. (Also available at http://faostat 3.fao.org/browse/R/RL/E)<br />

FAO. 2014. FAOSTAT. Rome, FAO. (Also available at http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx)<br />

FAO/IUSS/ISRIC. 2006. World Reference Base for <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>. World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Reports 103. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO/RAPA. 1992. Environmental Issues in Land and Water Development. Bangkok, FAO/RAPA.. 488 pp. (Includes<br />

country papers on Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka)<br />

Fischer, G., Nachtergaele, F.O., Prieler, S., Teixeira, E., Toth, G.,Velthuizen, H.v., Verelst, L. & Wiberg, D.<br />

2012. Global Agro-Ecological Zones (GAEZ v 3.0) - Model Documentation. Laxenburg, IIASA & Rome, FAO.<br />

Fisher, R. & Hirsch, P. 2008. Poverty and agrarian-forest interactions in Thailand. Geogr. Res., 46: 74-84.<br />

FSI. 1999. State of Forest Report. Dehra Dun, Forest Survey of India.<br />

Germer, J. & Sauerborn, J. 2008. Estimation of the impact of oil palm plantation establishment on<br />

greenhouse gas balance. Environ. Develop. Sustain., 10: 697-716.<br />

GSP. 2012. Official web site. Nanjing Communiqué on Asian <strong>Soil</strong> Partnership. (Also available at http://www.<br />

fao.org/globalsoilpartnership/regional-partnerships/asia/en/)<br />

Guo, J.H., Liu, X.J., Zhang, Y., Shen, J.L., Han, W.X., Zhang, W.F., Christie, P., Goulding, K.W.T., Vitousek,<br />

P.M. & Zhang, F.S. 2010. Significant Acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science, 327: 1008-1010.<br />

Gupta, R.K. & Rao, D.L.N. 1994. Potential of wastelands for sequestering carbon by reforestation. Curr. Sci.,<br />

66: 378-380.<br />

Han, Y.W. & Gao, J.X. 2005. Analysis of main ecological problems of grasslands and relevant countermeasures<br />

in China. Res. Environ. Sci., 18: 60–62. [in Chinese]<br />

Haron, K., Brookes, P.C., Anderson, J.M. & Zakaria, Z.Z. 1998. Microbial biomass and soil organic matter<br />

dynamics in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) plantations, West Malaysia. <strong>Soil</strong> Biol. Biochem., 30: 547–552.<br />

Hartanto, H., Prabhu, R., Widayat, A.S.E. & Asdak, C. 2003. Factors affecting runoff and soil erosion: plotlevel<br />

soil loss monitoring for assessing sustainability of forest management. For. Ecol. Manage., 180: 361–374.<br />

Hattori, D., Tanaka, K., Okamura, I.K., Kendawang, J.J., Ninomiya, I. & Sakurai, K. 2013. Effects of soil<br />

compaction on the growth and motality of planted dipterocarp seedlings in a logged-over tropical rainforest<br />

in Sarawak, Malaysia. For. Ecol. Manag., 310: 770-776.<br />

Hicks, W.K., Kuylenstierna, J.C.I., Owen, A., Dentener, F., Seip, H.M. & Rodhe, H. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> sensitivity to<br />

acidification in Asia: status and prospects. AMBIO, 37: 295-303.<br />

Hooijer, A. S. Page, P. Navratil, R. Vernimmen, M. Van der Vat, K. Tansey, K. Konecny, F. Siegert, U.<br />

Ballhorn & N. Mawdsley. 2014. Carbon emissions from drained and degraded peatland in Indonesia and emission<br />

factors for measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of peatland greenhouse gas emissions A summary of KFCP<br />

research results for practitioners. Indonesia, Jakarta, IAFCP.<br />

Houghton, R.A. & Hackler, J.L. 2003. Sources and sinks of carbon from land-use change in China. Global<br />

Biogeochem. Cycles, 17: 1034.<br />

Husnain, H., Wigena, I.G.P., Dariah, A., Marwanto, S., Setyanto, P. & Agus, F. 2014. CO 2<br />

emissions from<br />

tropical drained peat in Sumatra, Indonesia. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 19: 845-862.<br />

Husnain, Masunaga, T., Wakatsuki, T. 2010. Field assessment of nutrient balance under intensive ricefarming<br />

systems, and its effects on the sustainability of rice production in Java Island, Indonesia. Journal of<br />

agricultural, food and environmental science, 4(1).<br />

ICAR & NAAS. 2010. Degraded and Wastelands of India - Status and Spatial Distribution, by S.M. Virmani, R.<br />

Prasad & P.S. Pathak, ed. Indian Council of Agricultural Research and National Academy of Agricultural<br />

Sciences, and Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. 158 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

321<br />

in Asia


IFA. 2012. Global supply and demand outlook for fertilizer and raw materials. IFA. (Also available at www.fertilizer.<br />

org)<br />

IFADATA. 2007. Production and International Trade Statistics. International Fertilizer Industry Association.<br />

(Also available at http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/statistics.asp, retrieved 12 October 2014)<br />

Indrayatie, E.R., Utomo, W.H., Handayanto, E. & Anderson, C.W.N. 2013. The use of vetiver (Vetiveria<br />

zizanioides L.) for the remediation of wastewater discharged from tapioca factories. Int. J. of Environ. Waste<br />

Manage, 12: 1-16.<br />

IPCC. 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, by H.S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa., T.<br />

Ngara & K. Tanabe, eds. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Japan, IGES.<br />

IPCC. 2014. Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands, by T.<br />

Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda & T.G. Troxler, eds. Switzerland, IPCC.<br />

Jim, C.Y. 1998a. <strong>Soil</strong> characteristics and management in an urban park in Hong Kong. Env. Manage, 22: 683-<br />

695.<br />

Jim, C.Y. 1998b. Physical and chemical properties of a Hong Kong roadside soil in relation to urban tree<br />

growth. Urban Ecosyst., 2: 171-181.<br />

Jo, I.S., Jung, P.K., Kim, L.Y., Ha, S.K. & Chung, D.Y. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> Physical properties and soil conservation.<br />

Korean. J. <strong>Soil</strong>. Sci. Fert., 42(s): 28-52.<br />

Ju, X.T., Xing, G.X., Chen, X.P., Zhang, S.L., Zhang, L.J., Liu, X.J., Cui, Z.L., Yin, B., Christie, P., Zhu, Z.L. &<br />

Zhang, F.S. 2009. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural<br />

systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106: 3041-3046.<br />

Jung, K.H., Kim, W.T., Hur, S.O., Ha, S.K. Jung, P.K. & Jung, Y.S. 2004. USLE/RUSLE factors for national<br />

scale soil loss estimation based on the digital detailed soil map. Korean. J. <strong>Soil</strong>. Sci. Fert., 37(4): 199-206.<br />

Jung, K.H., Sonn, Y.K., Hong, S.Y., Hur, S.O. & Ha, S.K. 2005. Assessment of national soil loss and potential<br />

erosion area using the digital detailed soil map. Korean. J. <strong>Soil</strong>. Sci. Fert., 38(2): 59-65.<br />

Jung, P.K. & Oh, S.J. 1993. <strong>Soil</strong> loss with grass species in grasslands conversed from mountainous forests.<br />

In Research report 1992, pp 149-153.. Republic of Korea, Suwon, National Institute of Agricultural Technology.<br />

Jung, P.K. 1998. <strong>Soil</strong> and water conservation (Review). Korean. J. <strong>Soil</strong>. Sci. Fert., 31(S 1): 27-35.<br />

Jung, Y.S., Joo, J.H. & Yoon, S.Y. 2002. A Management guideline for soil and irrigation water in the reclaimed<br />

saline land. Korea, IAS, Kangwon Nat. Univ.<br />

Kamprath, E. 1984. Crop response to lime on soils in the tropics. In F. Adam, ed. <strong>Soil</strong> acidity and liming, Second<br />

edition, Agronomy 12, pp. 349-368. USA, Madison, WI, <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America.<br />

Kim, M.K., Kwon, S.I., Jung, K.B., Hong, S.C., Chae, M.J., Yun, S.K. & So, K.H. 2013. Small-scale pond<br />

effects on reducing pollutants load from a paddy field. Korean J. Environ. Agri., 32: 355-358.<br />

Kitahara, H., Okura, Y., Sammori, T. & Kawanami, A. 2000. Application of universal soil loss equation<br />

(USLE) to mountainous forests in Japan. J. For. Res., 5: 231-236.<br />

Kohyama, K., Hojito, M., Sasaki, H. & Miyaji, H. 2003. Generation of agricultural statistics mesh data using<br />

digital national land information. Jap. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Plant Nutr., 74: 415-424. [in Japanese with English summary]<br />

Kohyama, K., Taniyama, I., Ohkura, T. & Nakai, M. 2012. USLE parameter data of 1 km grid to estimate soil<br />

erosion in farmland. Inventory, 10: 3-9. [in Japanese]<br />

Kozlowski, T. 1999. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction and growth of woody plants. Scand. J. For. Res., 14, 596-619.<br />

Kruemmelbein, J, Peth, S. & Horn, R. 2008. Determination of pre-compression stress of a variously grazed<br />

steppe soil under static and cyclic loading. <strong>Soil</strong> Till., 99: 139-148.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

322<br />

in Asia


Kukal, S.S. & Aggarwal, G.C. 2003. Puddling depth and intensity effects in rice–wheat system on a sandy<br />

loam soil, I: Development of subsurface compaction. <strong>Soil</strong> Till. Res., 72: 1–8.<br />

Kyuma, K. 2004. Paddy soil science. Kyoto University Press & Trans Pacific Press.<br />

Lal, R. 2003. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and the global carbon budget. Environ. Internat., 29: 437-450.<br />

Lal, R. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304:<br />

1623-1627.<br />

Lee, K.S. 1994. Application of GIS to the Universal <strong>Soil</strong> Loss Equation for Quantifying Rainfall Erosion in<br />

Forest Watersheds. J. Korean For. Soc., 83(3): 322-330.<br />

Leon, A., Kohyama, K., Mishima, S., Ohkura, T., Shirato, Y., Takata, Y., Taniyama, I. & Obara, H. 2012.<br />

Factors controlling organic amendment application rate and long-term change in application rate in Japanese<br />

paddy field using longitudinal questionnaire survey dataset (the Basic <strong>Soil</strong> Environment Monitoring Project,<br />

Stationary Monitoring, 1979-1998). <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Plant Nutr., 58: 104-120.<br />

Li, P., Feng, X., Qiu, G., Shang, L., Wang, S. & Meng, B. 2009. Atmospheric mercury emission from<br />

artisanal mercury mining in Guizhou Province, Southwestern China. Atmos. Environ., 43: 2247-2251.<br />

Li, S.-G., Asanuma, J., Eugster, W., Kotani, A., Liu, J.-J., Urano, T., Oikawa, T., Davaa, G., Oyunbaatar,<br />

D. & Sugita, M. 2005. Net ecosystem carbon dioxide exchange over grazed steppe in central Mongolia. Global<br />

Change Biol., 11: 1941-1955.<br />

Limbong, D., Kumampung, J., Rimper, J. Arai, T. & Miyazaki, N. 2003. Emissions and environmental<br />

implications of mercury from artisanal gold mining in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Sci. Total Environ., 302(1-3):<br />

227-236.<br />

Liu, X., Zhang, Y, Han, W., Tang, A., Shen, J., Cui, Z., Vitousek, P., Erisman, J.W., Goulding, K., Christie,<br />

P., Fangmeier, A. & Zhang, F. 2013. Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature, 494: 459-462.<br />

Luo, Y., Wu, L., Liu, L., Han, C. & Li, Z. 2009. Heavy Metal Contamination and Remediation in Asian Agricultural<br />

Land. MARCO Symposium 2009: Challenges for Agro-Environmental Research in Monsoon Asia.<br />

Ma, L., Ma, W.Q., Velthof, G.L., Wang, F.H., Qin, W., Zhang, F.S. & Oenema, O. 2010. Modelling nutrient<br />

flows in the food chain of China. J. Environ. Qual., 39: 1279-1289.<br />

MAFF. 2008. Trend and Issue of cultivated soil in Japan. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery. (Also<br />

available at http://www.maff.go.jp/j/study/dozyo_kanri/01/pdf/ref_data 1.pdf)<br />

Makino, T. 2010. Heavy metal pollution of soil and risk alleviation methods based on soil chemistry.<br />

Pedologist, 53; 38-49.<br />

Marwanto, S. & Agus, F. 2014. Is CO 2<br />

flux from oil palm plantations on peatland controlled by soil moisture<br />

and/or soil and air temperatures? Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 19: 809-819.<br />

Mathews. J., Tan, T.H. & Chong, K.M. 2010. Indication of soil organic carbon augmentation in oil palm<br />

cultivated inland mineral soils of Peninsular Malaysia. The Planter, Kuala Lumpur, 86: 293-313.<br />

Milesi, C., Elvidge, C.D., Nemani, R.R. & Running, S.W. 2003. Assessing the impact of urban land<br />

development on net primary productivity in the Southeastern United States. Remote Sens. Environ., 86: 401-<br />

410.<br />

Millward, A.A., Paudel, K. & Briggs, S.E. 2011. Naturalization as a strategy for improving soil physical<br />

characteristics in a forested urban park. Urban Ecosyst., 14: 261-278.<br />

Minasny, B., McBratney, A.B., Hong, S.Y., Sulaeman, Y., Kim, M.S., Zhang, Y.S., Kim, H.Y. & Han, K.H.<br />

2012. Continous rice cropping has been sequestering carbon in soils in Java and South Korea for the past<br />

30years. Global Biogeochem. Cycle, 26: 1-8. GB 3207.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

323<br />

in Asia


Ministry of Environmental Protection, the People’s Republic of China. 2014. China alerted by serious soil<br />

pollution. China. (available at http://english.mep.gov.cn/News_service/media_news/201404/t20140421_270801.htm)<br />

Mishima, S., Endo, A. & Kohyama, K. 2010a. Recent trend in residual nitrogen on national and regional<br />

scales in Japan and its relation with groundwater quality. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosys., 83: 1-11.<br />

Mishima, S., Endo, A. & Kohyama, K. 2010b. Recent trends in phosphate balance nationally and by region<br />

in Japan. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosys., 86: 69-77.<br />

Mishima, S., Kimura, S.D., Eguchi, S. & Shirato, Y. 2012. Estimation of the amounts of livestock manure,<br />

rice straw, and rice straw compost applied to crops in Japan: a bottom-up analysis based on national survey<br />

data and comparison with the results from a top-down approach. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Plant Nutr., 58: 83-90.<br />

MOE. 2014. Enforcement status of Agricultural Land–<strong>Soil</strong> Pollution Preventation Law in 2014 fiscalyear. Japan,<br />

Ministry of the Environment. (Also available at: http://www.env.go.jp/press/files/25644.pdf) (in Japanese)<br />

Morisada, K., Ono, K. & Kanomata, H. 2004. Organic carbon stock in forest soils in Japan. Geoderma, 119:<br />

21-32.<br />

Mujeeb Rahman, P., Varma, R.V. & Sileshi, G.W. 2012. Abundance and diversity of soil invertebrates in<br />

annual crops, agroforestry and forest ecosystems in the Nilgiri biosphere reserve of Western Ghats, India.<br />

Agroforest. Syst., 85: 165-177.<br />

Murty, D., Kirschbaum, M.U.F., McMurtrie, R.E. & McGilvray, A. 2002. Does conversion of forest to<br />

agricultural land change soil carbon and nitrogen? A review of the literature. Global Change Biol., 8: 105–123.<br />

Nguyen, N.D. 2014. Adequate use of Sulphur. Vietnam Agriculture Newspaper, February 10, 2014.<br />

NISF. 2012. The basic information of main soils unit of Vietnam. National Institute for <strong>Soil</strong>s and Fertilizers.<br />

Hanoi, Thegioi publishers.<br />

Noor, M. 2001. Pertanian lahan gambut: potensi dan kendala (Peatland: potential and constraints). Jakarta,<br />

Penerbit Kanisius.<br />

Oldeman, L.R. 1991. Global extent of soil degradation. In ISRIC Bi-Annual Report 1991-1992, pp. 19-36. ISRIC.<br />

Oldeman, L.R. 2000. Impact of soil degradation: A Global Scenario. In Proceedings of International Conference<br />

on Managing Natural <strong>Resources</strong> for Sustainable Agricultural Production in the 21 st Century, pp 79-86. India, New Delhi.<br />

Page, S. E., Rieley, J.O. & Banks, C.J. 2011. Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon<br />

pool. Glob. Change Biol., 17: 798–818.<br />

Page, S.E., Siegert, F., Rieley, J.O., Boehm, H.V., Jaya, A. & Limin, S. 2002. The amount of carbon released<br />

from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature, 420: 61-65.<br />

Paningbatan, E.P. 1987. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion, problem and control in the Philippines. In Paper presented during the<br />

Training Workshop on <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation Measures and Agroforestry, pp. 7-23. PCARRD. Laguna, Los Baños.<br />

Parish, F., Sirin, A., Charman, D., Joosten, H., Minayeva, T., Silvius, M. & Stringer, L. (eds.). 2007.<br />

Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Main Report. Kuala Lumpur, Global Environment Centre<br />

& Wageningen, Wetlands International.<br />

Park, C.W., Sonn, Y.K., Hyun, B.K., Song, K.C., Chun, H.C., Moon, Y.H. & Yun, S.G. 2011. The redetermination<br />

of USLE rainfall erosion factor for estimation of soil loss at Korea. Korean. J. <strong>Soil</strong>. Sci. Fert., 44: 977-982.<br />

Park, K.R. 1991. Suitability Assessment and Production management of upland field crops in the reclaimed<br />

saline land. In A.M. Mashali, Choi, W.Y. & D.W. West, eds. Training manual agricultural use of reclaimed coastal land,<br />

pp. 174-192. FAO & Korea, Kwangju, Chonnam National University.<br />

Park, S.H. 2001. Tideland reclamation. In S.K. Kwun, ed. Rice Culture in Asia, pp. 116-118. Korea, Ansan, KCID<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

324<br />

in Asia


Piao, S., Fang, J., Ciais, P., Peylin, P., Huang, Y., Sitch, S. & Wang, T. 2009. The carbon balance of terrestrial<br />

ecosystems in China. Nature, 458: 1009-1013.<br />

Piao, S.L., Ito, A., Li, S.G., Huang, Y., Ciais, P., Wang, X.H., Peng, S.S., Nan, H.J., Zhao, C., Ahlström,<br />

A., Andres, R.J., Chevallier, F., Fang, J.Y., Hartmann, J., Huntingford, C., Jeong, S., Levis, S., Levy, P.E., Li,<br />

J.S., Lomas, M.R., Mao, J.F., Mayorga, E., Mohammat, A., Muraoka, H., Peng, C.H., Peylin, P., Poulter, B.,<br />

Shen, Z.H., Shi, X., Sitch, S., Tao, S., Tian, H.Q., Wu, X.P., Xu, M., Yu, G.R., Viovy, N., Zaehle, S., Zeng, N. &<br />

Zhu, B. 2012. The carbon budget of terrestrial ecosystems in East Asia over the last two decades. Biogeosci., 9:<br />

3571-3586.<br />

Prasetyo, B., Krisnayani, B.D., Utomo, W.H. & Anderson, C.W.N. 2010. Rehabilitation of artisanal gold<br />

mining land in West Lombok, Indonesia. Vol 2. Arbuscular mycorrhiza status of tailings and surrounding soils.<br />

J. Agric. Sci., 2: 202-209.<br />

Puslitbangtanak. 2000. Atlas Sumber Daya Tanah Eksplorasi Indonesia. Skala 1:1.000.000 (Exploration soil<br />

resource atlas, at 1:1 000 000 scale). Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Tanah dan Agroklimat. Bogor,<br />

Puslitbangtanak.<br />

Rahmawati, S., Margana, G., Yoneda, M. & Oginawati, K. 2013. Organochlorine pesticide residue in<br />

Catfish (Clarias sp.) collected from local fish cultivation at Citarum watershed, West Java Province, Indonesia.<br />

Procedia Environ. Sci., 17: 3-10.<br />

Ritung, S., Wahyunto, Nugroho, K., Sukarman, Hikmatullah, Suparto & Tafakresnanto, C. 2011. Peta<br />

Lahan Gambut Indonesia Skala 1:250.000 (Indonesian peatland map at the scale 1:250 000). Indonesia, Bogor,<br />

Indonesian Center for Agricultural Land <strong>Resources</strong> Research and Development.<br />

Rossi, J.P. & Blanchart, E. 2005. Seasonal and land use induced variations of soil macrofauna composition<br />

in the Western Ghats, southern India. <strong>Soil</strong> Biol. Biochem., 37: 1093–1104.<br />

Sakuramot, N., Yokoyama, K. & Iekushi, T. 2010. Advocacy of positive environmental assessment using<br />

soil microbial diversity and its vitality. In Proceeding of AFITA 2010 International Conference, pp. 137-140. AFITA.<br />

Salinger, M.J., Shrestha, M.L., Ailikun, Dong, W., McGregor, J.L. & Wang, S. 2014. Climate in Asia and the<br />

Pacific: Climate variability and change. In M. Manton & L.A. Stevenson, eds. Climate in Asia and the Pacific. Asia-<br />

Pacific Network for Global Change Research. Dordrecht, Springer Science & Business Media.<br />

Santoso, D., Adiningsih, S., Mutert, E., Fairhurst, T. & van Noordwijk, M. 1997. Site improvement and soil<br />

fertility management for reclamation of Imperata grasslands by smallholder agroforestry. Agrofor. Syst., 36:<br />

181-202.<br />

Schertz, D.L. 1983. The basis for soil loss tolerance. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Water Conserv., 38: 10-14.<br />

Schneider, A., Friedl, M.A. & Potere, D. 2009. A new map of global urban extent from MODIS satellite<br />

data. Environ. Res. Lett., 4(044003): 1-11.<br />

Sehgal, J. & Abrol, I.P. 1992. Land degradation statue: India. Desertification Bulletin, 21: 24-31.<br />

Shaheed, S.M. 1992. Environmental issues in land development in Bangladesh. In Environmental Issues in<br />

Land and Water Development, pp. 105-127. FAO & Bangkok, RAPA.<br />

Shamshuddin, J., Azura, A.E., Shazana, M.A.R.S., Fauziah, C.I., Panhwar, Q.A. & Naher, U.A. 2014.<br />

Properties and measurement of acid sulfate soils in Southeast Asia for sustainable cultivation of rice, oil palm,<br />

and cocoa. Adv. Agron., 124: 91-142.<br />

Shirato, Y., Yagasaki, Y. & Nishida, M. 2011. Using different versions of the Rothamsted Carbon model to<br />

Simulate soil carbon in long-term experimental plots subjected to paddy-upland rotation in Japan. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci.<br />

Plant Nutr., 57: 597-606.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

325<br />

in Asia


Shofiyati, R., Las, I. & Agus, F. 2010. Indonesian soil data base and predicted stock of soil carbon. In<br />

Proceedings of an international workshop on evaluation and sustainable management of soil carbon sequestration in<br />

Asian countries, pp.73-83. Indonesian <strong>Soil</strong> Research Institute (ISRI), Food & Fertilizer Technology Center for the<br />

Asian and Pacific Region (FFTC) and National Institute for Agro-environmental Sciences (NIAES).<br />

Shoiful, A., Fujita, H., Watanabe, I. & Honda, K. 2012. Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs)<br />

residues in foodstuffs collected from traditional markets in Indonesia. Chemosphere, 90: 1742-1750.<br />

Sidhu, G.S., Bhattacharyya, T., Sarkar, D., Ray, S.K., Chandran, P., Pal, D.K., Mandal, D.K., & Prasad, J.<br />

2014. Impact of soil management levels and land use changes on soil properties in rice-wheat cropping system<br />

of the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP). Current Science, 107(9): 1487-1501.<br />

Simmons, R.W., Pongsakul, P., Saiyasitpanich, D. & Klinphoklap, S. 2005. Elevated levels of cadmium<br />

and zinc in paddy soils and elevated levels of cadmium in rice grain downstream of a zinc mineralized area in<br />

Thailand: implications for public health. Environ. Geochem. Health, 27: 501-511.<br />

Singh, K. B., Jalota, S. K. & Sharma, B. D. 2009. Effect of continuous rice-wheat rotation on soil properties<br />

from four agro-ecosystems of Indian Punjab. Commun. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Plant Anal., 40: 2945-2958.<br />

Singh, R.L. 1971. Regional Geography, by R. L. Singh, ed. Silver Jubilee Publication. National Geographical<br />

Society of India, Varanasi-5.<br />

Smedley, P.L. 2003. Arsenic in groundwater -south and east Asia. In A.H. Welch & K.G. Stollenwerk, eds.<br />

Arsenic in Ground Water, pp. 179-209. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.<br />

Somboonna, N., Wilantho, A., Jankaew, K., Assawamakin, A., Sangsrakru, D., Tangphatsornruang, S.<br />

& Tongsima, S. 2014. Microbial ecology of Thailand tsunami and non-tsunami affected terrestrials. PLoS ONE,<br />

9.<br />

Sukristiyonubowo, Nugroho, K. & Ritung, S. 2012. Rice growth and water productivity of newly opened<br />

wetlands in Indonesia. Internat. Res. J. Agric. Sci. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 2: 328-332.<br />

Takata, T., Kohyama, K., Obara, H., Maejima, Y., Ishitsuka, N., Saito, T. & Taniyama, I. 2014. Spatial<br />

prediction of radioactive Cs concentration in agricultural soil in East Japan. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Plant Nutr., 60: 393-403.<br />

Takata, Y. 2010. Estimation of soil carbon stock changes in Japanese agricultural soils using national<br />

resource inventory. In Proceedings of an international workshop on evaluation and sustainable management of soil<br />

carbon sequestration in Asian countries, pp 15-28. Indonesian <strong>Soil</strong> Research Institute (ISRI), Food & Fertilizer<br />

Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region (FFTC) and National Institute for Agro-environmental<br />

Sciences (NIAES).<br />

Takata, Y., Ito, T., Ohkura, T., Obara, H., Kohyama, K. & Shirato, Y. 2011a. Phosphate adsorption coefficient<br />

can improve the validity of RothC model for Andosols. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Plant Nutr., 57: 421-428<br />

Takata, Y., Obara, H., Nakai, S. & Kohyama, K. 2011b. Process of the decline in the cultivated soil area with<br />

land use changes in Japan. Jpa. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Plant Nutr., 82: 15-24. (in Japanese with English summary)<br />

Tan, Z.X., Lal, R. & Wiebe, K.D. 2005. Global soil nutrient depletion and yield reduction. J. Sustainable Agric.,<br />

26: 123-146.<br />

Tanaka, S., Tachibe, S., Wasli, M.E.B., Lat, J., Seman, L., Kendawang, J.J., Iwasaki, K. K. & Sakurai, K.<br />

2009. <strong>Soil</strong> characteristics under cash crop farming in upland areas of Sarawak, Malaysia. Agric. Ecosys. Environ.,<br />

129: 293–301.<br />

Tandon, H.L.S. 1992. Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Nutrient Depletion. Paper presented to FADINAP seminar, Fertilization<br />

and the environment. Thailand, Chiang Mai.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

326<br />

in Asia


Taniyama, I. 2003. Study of soil factor related to production of surface runoff from cropland and<br />

development of MI. In Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council, eds. Comprehensive evaluation of<br />

implication of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and trade of products on natural resources and the environment, p. 149-152.<br />

Tokyo, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Research Council(in Japanese)<br />

Tian, H., Melillo, J., Lu, C., Kicklighter, D., Liu, M., Ren, W., Xu, X., Chen, G., Zhang, C., Pan, S., Liu, J. &<br />

Running, S. 2011. China’s terrestrial carbon balance: Contributions from multiple global change factors. Global<br />

Biogeochem. Cycles, 25: GB 1007.<br />

Twyford, I. 1994. Fertilizer Use and Crop Yields. Paper presented to 4th National Congress of the <strong>Soil</strong> Science<br />

Society of Pakistan, Islamabad.<br />

Ugawa, S., Takahashi, M., Morisada, K., Takeuchi, M., Matsuura, Y., Yoshinaga, S., Araki, M., Tanaka,<br />

N., Ikeda, S., Miura, S., Ishizuka, S., Kobayashi, M., Inagaki, M., Imaya, A., Nanko, K., Hashimoto, S.,<br />

Aizawa, S., Hirai, K., Okamoto, T., Mizoguchi, T., Torii, A., Sakai, S., Ohnuki, Y. & Kaneko, S. 2012. Carbon<br />

stocks of dead wood, litter, and soil in the forest sector of Japan: general description of the National Forest <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Carbon Inventory. Bulletin of FFPRI, 11: 207-221.<br />

Valentin, C., Agus, F., Alamban, R., Boosaner, A., Bricquet, J.P., Chaplot, V., de Guzman, T., de Rouw,<br />

A., Janeau, J.L., Orange, D., Phachomphonh, K., Do Duy Phai, Podwojewski, P., Ribolzi, O., Silvera, N.,<br />

Subagyono, K., Thiébaux, J.P., Tran Duc Toan & Vadari, T. 2008. Runoff and sediment losses from 27 upland<br />

catchments in Southeast Asia: Impact of rapid land use changes and conservation practices. Agric. Ecosys.<br />

Environ., 128: 225-238.<br />

van der Kamp, J., Yassir, I. & Buurman, P. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon changes upon secondary succesion in Imperata<br />

grasslands (East Kalimantan, Indonesia). Geoderma, 149: 76-83.<br />

van Lynden, G.W.J. & Oldeman, L.R. 1997. The assessment of the status of human-induced soil degradation in<br />

South and Southeast Asia. The Netherlands, Wageningen, International <strong>Soil</strong> Reference and Information Centre.<br />

van Noordwijk, M., Cerri, P., Woomer, P.L., Nugroho, K. & Bernoux, M. 1997. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon dynamic in the<br />

humid tropical forest zone. Geoderma, 79: 187-225. doi: 10.1016/S 0016-7061(97)00042-6.<br />

Veiga, M.M., Nunes, D., Klein, B., Shandro, J.A., Velasquez, P.C. & Sousa, R.N. 2009. Mill leaching: a<br />

viable substitute for mercury amalgamation in the artisanal gold mining sector? J. Cleaner Prod., 17: 1373-1381.<br />

Velayutham, M. & Bhattacharyya, T. 2000. <strong>Soil</strong> Resource Management. In Natural Resource Management for<br />

Agricultural Production in India, byJ.S.P. Yadav and G.B. Singh, eds. Published by Secretary General International<br />

Conference on Managing Natural <strong>Resources</strong> for Sustainable Agricultural Production in the 21 st Century.<br />

Velthof, G.L., Oudendag, D., Witzke, H.P., Asman, W.A.H., Klimont, Z. & Oenema, O. 2009. Integrated<br />

assessment of nitrogen losses from agriculture in EU-27 using MITERRA-EUROPE. J. Environ. Qual., 38: 402-417.<br />

Vitousek, P.M., Naylor, R., Crews, T., David, M.B., Drinkwater, L.E., Holland, E., Johnes, P.J.,<br />

Katzenberger, J., Martinelli, L.A., Matson, P.A., Nziguheba, G., Ojima, D., Palm, C.A., Robertson, G.P.,<br />

Sanchez, P.A., Townsend, A.R. & Zhang, F.S. 2009. Nutrient imbalances in agricultural development. Science,<br />

324: 1519-1520.<br />

von Uexküll, H.R. & Mutert, E. 1995. Global extent, development and economic impact of acid soils. Plant<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>, 171: 1-15.<br />

Wahyunto, W., Nugroho, K., Ritung, S. & Agus, F. 2014. Indonesian peatland map: Method, Certainty,<br />

and uses. pp. 81-96. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pengelolaan Berkelanjutan Lahan Gambut Terdegradasi<br />

untuk Mitigasi Emisi GRK dan Peningkatan Nilai Ekonomi. Indonesian Agency or Agricultural Research and<br />

Development, Jakarta, Indonesia.<br />

Wang, H., Xu, R.K., Wang, N. & Li, X.H. 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification of Alfisols as influenced by tea plantation in<br />

eastern China. Pedosphere, 20: 799-806.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

327<br />

in Asia


Wang, J., Chen, Y., Shao, X., Zhang, Y. & Cao, Y. 2012. Land-use changes and policy dimension driving<br />

forces in China: Present, trend and future. Land Use Policy, 29: 737-749.<br />

Warren, M.W., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., Anshari, G., Hergoualc’h, K., Kurnianto, S., Purbopuspito,<br />

J., Gusmayanti, E., Afifudin, M., Rahajoe, J., Alhamd, L., Limin, S. & Iswandi, A. 2012. A cost-efficient method<br />

to assess carbon stocks in tropical peat soil. Biogeosciences, 9: 4477–4485.<br />

We i, C.Y. & Chen, T.B. 2001. Hyperaccumulators and phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soil:<br />

a review of studies in China and abroad. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 21: 1196-1203.<br />

Widowati, W., De Neve, L.R., Sukristiyonubowo, S., Setyorini, D., Kasno, A., Sihaputar, I.A. &<br />

Sukristiyohastomo. 2011. Nitrogen balances and nitrogen uses efficiency of intensive vegetable rotations in<br />

South East Asian tropical Andisols. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosys., 91: 131-143.<br />

Williams, M., Fordyce, F., Paijitprapapong, P. & Charoenchaisri, P. 1996. Arsenic contamination in surface<br />

drainage and groundwater in part of Southeast Asia tin belt, Nakhon Si Thammarat province, Southern<br />

Thailand. Environ. Geol., 27: 16-33.<br />

Wosten, J.H.M., Clymans, E., Page, S.E., Rieley, J.O. & Limin, S.H. 2008. Peat-water interrelationships in<br />

a tropical peatland ecosystem in Southeast Asia. Catena, 73: 212-224.<br />

Xie, Z., Liu, G., Bei, Q., Chen, C., Cadisch, G., Liu, Q., Lin, Z., Hasegawa, T. and Zhu, J. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> organic<br />

carbon stocks, changes and CO 2<br />

mitigation potential by alteration of residue amendment pattern in China. In<br />

A. Hartemink & K. McSweeney, eds. <strong>Soil</strong> Carbon,, pp.457-466. Springer International Publishing.<br />

Xie, Z., Zhu, J., Liu, G., Cadisch, G., Hasegawa, T., Chen, C., Sun, H., Tang, H. & Zeng, Q. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong> organic<br />

stocks in China and changes from 1980s to 2000s. Global Change Biol., 13:1989-2007.<br />

Yagasaki, Y. & Shirato, Y. 2014. Assessment on the rates and potentials of soil organic carbon sequestration<br />

in agricultural lands in Japan using a process-based model and spatially explicit land-use change inventories<br />

– Part 1: Historical trend and validation based on nation-wide soil monitoring. Biogeosciences, 11: 4429-4442.<br />

Yan, X., Du, L., Shi, S. & Xing, G. 2000. Nitrous oxide emission from wetland rice soil as affected by the<br />

application of controlled-availability fertilizers and mid-season aeration. Biol. Fertil. <strong>Soil</strong>s, 32: 60-66.<br />

Yan, X.Y., Akimoto, H. & Ohara, T. 2003. Estimation of nitrous oxide, nitric oxide and ammonia emissions<br />

from croplands in East, Southeast and South Asia. Global Change Biol., 9,:1080-1096.<br />

Yan, X.Y., Akiyama, H., Yagi, K. & Akimoto, H. 2009. Global estimations of the inventory and mitigation<br />

potential of methane emissions from rice cultivation conducted using the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on<br />

Climate Change Guidelines. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 23: GB 2002. doi:10.1029/2008GB 003299.<br />

Yan, Z., Liu, P., Li, Y., Ma, L., Alva, A., Dou, Z., Chen, Q. & Zhang, F. 2013. Phosphorus in China’s intensive<br />

vegetable production systems: Overfertilization, soil enrichment, and environmental implications. J. Environ.<br />

Qual., 42: 982-989.<br />

Yokoyama, K. & Taguchi, Y-H. 2013. Microbiology and biodiversity-based modelling of suppression of<br />

cottony leak of scarlet runner bean in soils with diverse and uniform ecology. J. Agric. Sci. Appl., 2: 35-44.<br />

Yokoyama, K. 1993. Evaluation of biodiversity of soil microbial community. In Symbiosphere: Ecological<br />

Complexity for Promoting Biodiversity, p. 74-78. Biology International special issue 29. International Union of<br />

Biological Sciences.<br />

Yu, Y.Y., Guo, Z.T., Wu, H.B., Kahmann, J.A. & Oldfield, F. 2009. Spatial changes in soil organic carbon<br />

density and storage of cultivated soils in China from 1980 to 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 23: GB 2021, doi:<br />

2010.1029/2008GB 003428.<br />

Zhang, X.Y., Cruse, R.M., Sui, Y.Y. & Jhao, Z. 2006. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction induced by small tractor traffic in<br />

northeast China. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 70: 613-619.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

328<br />

in Asia


Zhao, Y., Duan, L., Xing, J., Larssen, T., Nielsen, C.P. & Hao, J.M. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification in China: Is<br />

controlling SO 2<br />

emissions enough? Environ. Sci. Tech., 43: 8021-8026.<br />

Zhou, G.Y., Liu, S.G., Li, Z.A., Zhang, D.Q., Tang, X.L., Zhou, C.Y., Yan, J.H. & Mo, J.M. 2006. Old-growth<br />

forests can accumulate carbon in <strong>Soil</strong>s. Science, 314: 1417.<br />

Zhuang, P., Zou, B., Li, N.Y. & Li, Z.A. 2009. Heavy metal contamination in soils and food crops around<br />

Dabaoshan mine in Guangdong, China: implication for human health. Environ. Geochem. Health, 31: 707-715.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

329<br />

in Asia


11 | Regional assessment of soil<br />

changes in Europe and Eurasia<br />

Regional Coordinator/Lead Author: Pavel Krasilnikov (ITPS/Russia)<br />

Contributing Authors: Irina Alyabina (Russia), Dominique Arrouays (ITPS/France), Svyatoslav Balyuk<br />

(Ukraine), Marta Camps Arbestain (ITPS/New Zealand), Laziza Gafurova (Uzbekistan), Hakki Emrah Erdogan<br />

(Turkey), Elena Havlicek (Switzerland), Maria Konyushkova (Russia), Ramazan Kuziev (Uzbekistan), Marc<br />

van Liedekerke (EC), Vitaliy Medvedev (Ukraine), Luca Montanarella (ITPS/EC), Panos Panagos (EC), Manuela<br />

Ravina da Silva (EC), Bülent Sönmez (Turkey).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

330<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


11.1 | Introduction<br />

The majority of reports on the global state of soil degradation regard the European region as less disturbed<br />

compared with the situation in other regions. According to an ISRIC estimation (Oldeman, 1998), the<br />

average cumulative loss of productivity during the post-Second World War period due to human-induced soil<br />

degradation was estimated as 7.9 percent while in Africa it was 25 percent, and in Central America it was as high<br />

as 36.8 percent. However, the extent of soil degradation in Europe appears to be underestimated, because soil<br />

degradation on the territory of the European region has many facets, not all considered in previous estimates.<br />

The processes of human-induced soil degradation started in many parts of the region in ancient times,<br />

because many centres of agrarian civilization emerged in Europe and Eurasia several millennia ago: Greece,<br />

Anatolia and the Amu Darya delta are just the most remarkable examples. Since that time the pressure on the<br />

land has increased because of growing populations and the intensive migration of people due to a decline in<br />

natural resources and climatic fluctuations. The western part of the European region in comparison to other<br />

regions of the world has a history of over 200 years of industrialization which have placed additional pressures<br />

on the soil.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> changes can occur naturally but are now under increasing threat from a wide range of anthropogenic<br />

pressures. Today these pressures represent the main reason for soil degradation in many parts of Europe.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> resources are being over-exploited, degraded and irreversibly lost due to poor management practices,<br />

industrial activities and land-use changes. These issues in the region threaten soil’s key role as the basis for<br />

provision of food, feed, fibre and energy as well as for ecosystem services and mitigation of climate change.<br />

Knowledge on the state of soil resources in the region is good because of the generally high development<br />

of soil science and soil monitoring in the countries of the region. Nonetheless, an overview of the state of soil<br />

resources and of the development of land degradation for the whole region remains difficult because of the<br />

lack of harmonization of data, which were often obtained at different times using different methodologies<br />

(Jones and Montanarella, 2003; Morvan et al., 2008).<br />

In this chapter, we focus on anthropogenic degradation, e.g. alteration of soil properties induced by human<br />

activities that leads to declines in soil productivity and ecosystem services. The human activities in question<br />

include improper agricultural use, and soil disturbance and contamination due to urbanization, industrial and<br />

mining activities.<br />

11.2 | Stratification of the region<br />

The European region as considered in this report includes Europe sensu stricto plus Turkey and Eurasia. This<br />

larger definition extending beyond Europe proper entails consideration of a wider diversity of bioclimatic and<br />

soil resources and consequently of land use. The importance of agriculture varies among the countries of the<br />

region (Table 11.1). In terms of percentage area under agricultural use, the five leaders are Kazakhstan, Moldova,<br />

United Kingdom, Ukraine and Turkmenistan and the five least agricultural countries are Greenland, Norway,<br />

Finland, Sweden, and the Russian Federation. For the countries with the largest agricultural area, it should<br />

be noted that the figures require interpretation. For example, the high percentage of agricultural lands in<br />

Kazakhstan does not mean that the country has the highest pressure on natural ecosystems, because almost<br />

90 percent of its agricultural area is in fact occupied by rangelands. The countries with the least percentage<br />

of agricultural lands are the coldest countries of the region, where bioclimatic condition do not allow the<br />

extension of agricultural activities.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

331<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Area name<br />

Agricultural area of<br />

total land area, percent<br />

Area name<br />

Agricultural area of<br />

total land area, percent<br />

Kazakhstan 77.00<br />

Republic of Moldova 76.05<br />

United Kingdom 71.35<br />

Ukraine 71.32<br />

Turkmenistan 69.29<br />

Hungary 64.41<br />

Uzbekistan 63.04<br />

Denmark 62.82<br />

Ireland 62.79<br />

Romania 61.67<br />

Serbia 57.81<br />

Azerbaijan 57.54<br />

Spain 57.44<br />

Netherlands 57.12<br />

Armenia 56.21<br />

Kyrgyzstan 55.96<br />

Greece 55.38<br />

Czech Republic 55.09<br />

Serbia and Montenegro 54.81<br />

France 53.81<br />

Poland 53.17<br />

Turkey 52.27<br />

Luxembourg 49.95<br />

Italy 49.76<br />

Germany 48.59<br />

Bulgaria 47.95<br />

The former Yugoslav<br />

Republic of Macedonia<br />

46.78<br />

Belgium 45.57<br />

Belarus 44.20<br />

Lithuania 43.69<br />

Liechtenstein 42.44<br />

Slovakia 42.17<br />

Bosnia and<br />

Herzegovina<br />

42.07<br />

Andorra 41.81<br />

Albania 41.69<br />

Channel Islands 41.34<br />

Portugal 41.17<br />

Austria 39.59<br />

Georgia 38.34<br />

Montenegro 38.19<br />

Switzerland 38.11<br />

Tajikistan 33.47<br />

Malta 30.34<br />

Latvia 27.80<br />

Slovenia 24.62<br />

Croatia 21.98<br />

Estonia 20.45<br />

Iceland 18.43<br />

San Marino 16.67<br />

Cyprus 15.38<br />

Russian Federation 13.17<br />

Sweden 7.66<br />

Finland 7.47<br />

Norway 3.39<br />

Greenland 0.57<br />

Table 11.1 The percentage of agricultural land area of total land area in the countries of the European region Source: FAO, 2015.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

332<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


The internal stratification within the region and within countries, including the extent of agricultural lands,<br />

depends mainly on bioclimatic conditions which determine agro-ecological zones. According to standard<br />

agro-ecological zoning (Fischer et al., 2002), the European region lies in the following agro-ecological zones:<br />

Arctic (only Greenland and Russia); Boreal continental (Eastern Russia); Boreal sub-continental (Russia,<br />

Scandinavian countries, Greenland); Boreal oceanic (Iceland and Greenland); Temperate continental (Russian<br />

and Kazakhstan); Temperate sub-continental (Eastern and Central Europe, Turkey, South Caucasian countries,<br />

Russia, Central Asian Countries); Temperate oceanic (Western, Central and Northern Europe); Sub-tropical<br />

with winter rainfall (Southern Europe, Turkey, South Caucasus); and Sub-tropical with summer rainfall (only<br />

small areas in Spain and southern France).<br />

The other approach for characterizing the internal stratification of the region is its division according to<br />

the major biomes. The digital map of terrestrial eco-regions presented below (Figure 11.1) delineates the major<br />

biomes found in the European region, based on the World Wildlife Fund’s eco-regions (The Nature Conservancy,<br />

2009).<br />

Produced by EU JRC<br />

Figure 11.1 Terrestrial eco-regions of the European region. Source: Olson et al., 2001.<br />

In brief, the relation of these major zones to agricultural development and soil degradation processes is the<br />

following:<br />

Polar and tundra, and taiga zone<br />

This zone represents a treeless polar ecosystem located in high latitudes in the European region in Russia<br />

and Scandinavia. The climate is characterized by long winters with months of total darkness and extremely<br />

frigid temperatures. Vegetation is mainly scattered, although sometimes it can be patchy, reflecting changes<br />

in soil and moisture gradients. Most precipitation falls in the form of snow during winter time. <strong>Soil</strong>s tend to<br />

be acidic and saturated with water where not frozen. The region is sparsely populated, with agriculture in the<br />

tundra limited to reindeer grazing. Thus agricultural pressure on soils is not very strong; however huge areas<br />

are affected by mining and petroleum extraction. Some land degradation processes are triggered by humans<br />

indirectly. For example, in Siberia the processes of permafrost melting due to climatic change is resulting in the<br />

alteration of topography and causing severe damage to roads and buildings. Waterlogging is also a challenge<br />

in many areas.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

333<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Boreal forest/taiga<br />

These ecosystems cover extensive areas in northerly latitudes and with low annual temperatures. There are<br />

large expanses in central and eastern Russia, with medium precipitation of 40-100 cm yr -1 , partly in the form<br />

of snow. Predominant tree species are coniferous including Abies, Picea, Larix and Pinus as well as deciduous<br />

such as Betula spp. And Populus spp. The ground cover is mainly dominated by mosses and lichens. These<br />

biomes are known for slow regeneration of mature forests, due to the challenging climate and soil conditions.<br />

Forests are sensitive to acid rain and other forms of pollutant. Agriculture in the taiga is restricted to relatively<br />

small areas used for livestock and production of such crops as rye, flax, millet and vegetables. Some two<br />

decades ago, soil acidification induced by industrial contamination of the atmosphere, so called ‘acid rain’,<br />

was an important menace to soil quality in these areas. However, today the pressure of technogenic acid<br />

precipitation is considerably reduced (Jones et al., 2011).<br />

Broad-leaf and mixed forest zone<br />

This zone stretches across the European region from the British Isles to Western Siberia, and most of<br />

this territory is actually under cultivation. In the temperate climate, forests experience a wide variability in<br />

temperature and precipitation. Species such as oak (Quercus spp.), beech (Fagus spp.), birch (Betula spp.)<br />

and maple (Acer spp.) typify the composition of this biome. Structurally, these forests are characterized by<br />

four layers: a canopy composed of mature full-sized dominant species; a slightly lower layer of mature trees; a<br />

shrub layer; and an understory layer of grasses and other herbaceous plants. In contrast to tropical rain forests,<br />

most biodiversity is concentrated much closer to the forest floor. The zone has a favorable humid climate and<br />

soils with a relatively high natural productivity. Anthropogenic pressure is, however, strong due both to the<br />

intensive practice of agriculture and to high population density. The main threats to soils in this zone are water<br />

erosion favoured by intensive deforestation, and soil sealing and capping due to the high urbanization rate<br />

and dense infrastructure. In addition, the high degree of industrialization in this biome results in extensive<br />

contamination of the soils.<br />

Temperate coniferous forest<br />

This ecosystem is also known as ‘temperate evergreen forest’. It sustains the highest levels of biomass of<br />

any terrestrial ecosystem after tropical rainforest. The area has warm summers and cool winters, resulting<br />

in a high variation of the vegetation, e.g. needle leaf trees, broadleaf evergreen trees or a mix of both types.<br />

Temperate evergreen forests are common in the coastal areas of regions with mild winters and heavy rainfall,<br />

or inland in drier climates or hilly areas. Predominant tree species include pine, cedar, fir and redwood. This<br />

biome is mostly located in mountainous regions and the use of these areas is not very intensive.<br />

Temperate grassland zone<br />

This zone possesses the soils with the highest natural productivity such as Chernozems and Kastanozems.<br />

This high potential results in an intensive use of the land for agriculture which in places occupies up to 90-95<br />

percent of the total land area. The main threats to soils in this zone are water and wind erosion. These processes<br />

are the main reasons for the loss of organic carbon in soils; however, the loss of carbon by mineralization from<br />

arable lands is also a common process. Since the population density and the development of industry are high<br />

in this zone, soil sealing and capping and contamination are also threats. In places, especially in endorheic<br />

valleys, soil salinization may be observed.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

334<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Mediterranean zone<br />

This zone by definition is typical of the regions around the Mediterranean Sea. The ecosystems are<br />

characterized by hot and dry summers with cool and moist winters, with precipitation mostly during the<br />

winter months. Plant species are uniquely adapted to the stresses caused long, hot and dry summers. Most<br />

of the vegetation is adapted to fire and in fact depends on this disturbance for its sustainability. Some wildlife<br />

species undertake seasonal migration according to resource availability. The natural communities in this<br />

biome are highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation, grazing, and alteration of fire regimes (over-burning<br />

or fire suppression). Native species are also at risk from exotic species that easily establish and spread. To<br />

maintain the natural communities fire regimes need to be managed and exotic species controlled (WWF,<br />

2014). The ecosystems and soils are vulnerable due to the dryness of climate and to the abundance of shallow<br />

limestone soils. In many countries, transformation of pastures represents a serious problem. Erosion, organic<br />

carbon loss and decline in biodiversity are the main challenges for areas with Mediterranean climate. In places<br />

soil salinity may also limit the agricultural use of soils.<br />

Sub-arid and arid zone<br />

This zone includes deserts and semi- deserts, mostly located in Central Asia but also in some areas of<br />

Anatolia (Camci Çetin et al., 2007) and in the Iberian Peninsula. The vegetation in this zone is sparse, and all the<br />

ecosystems are subject to desertification. The main threats to soils in the zone are salinization, sodification,<br />

and wind erosion. Salinization is a natural process in many areas, also favored by initially saline parent material<br />

of marine origin. However, the most menacing process is irrigation-induced soil salinization, which leads to a<br />

drastic decline in soil fertility.<br />

11.3 | General threats to soils in the region<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> threats in the European region are complex, and although they are unevenly spread in the region, their<br />

dimension is continental and they are frequently inter-linked. If not managed, soil threats will lead to soil<br />

degradation, and the capacity of the soil to carry out its vital ecosystem functions will be lost. When many<br />

threats occur simultaneously, the combined effect tends to aggravate soil degradation (Jones et al., 2005).<br />

Climate change is likely to affect soil quality and cause land degradation through changes in soil moisture<br />

content (Calanca et al., 2006; Wong et al., 2011; García-Ruiz et al. 2011). For example, throughout central and<br />

northern Europe, evapotranspiration has increased by about 0.3 mm day -1 and this has the potential to deplete<br />

the normally adequate soil water store and limit plant growth. More frequent and severe droughts may cause<br />

plant cover to reduce leading to the onset of erosion and desertification (Jones et al., 2011). However, the<br />

precise impacts of climate change on soil degradation in Europe are still uncertain (Kovats et al., 2014). General<br />

threats to soils in the European region include the following.<br />

(1) Erosion by wind and water<br />

A recent report (Jones et al., 2011) estimated that in the 1990s 105 million ha, or 16 percent of Europe’s total<br />

land area (excluding Russia), were affected by water erosion, and that 42 million ha were affected by wind<br />

erosion. A new model of soil erosion by water constructed by the JRC has estimated the surface area affected<br />

in EU-27 at 1.3 million km², with almost 20 percent subject to soil loss in excess of 10 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . In Russia<br />

the area affected by medium and strong water erosion is 51 million ha, 26 percent of the agricultural land<br />

area and about 3.5 percent of the total land area (Ministry of Natural <strong>Resources</strong>, 2006). In Ukraine the area<br />

affected by water and wind erosion is about one third of all agricultural land, or 14.4 million ha. In Moldova the<br />

area affected by water erosion is about 840 thousand ha, one third (33.6 percent) of the total area of arable<br />

lands in the republic (Leah, 2012). In Belorussia the area affected by water erosion is 467 thousand ha, and by<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

335<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


wind erosion 89 thousand ha; totally eroded lands cover about 10 percent of the territory of the country. In<br />

Turkey, where 80 percent of soils are located on slopes steeper than 15 percent, the area affected by moderate,<br />

severe and very severe erosion is 61.3 million ha, or 78.7 percent of the total area of the country; wind erosion is<br />

active on about 500 thousand ha (Senol and Bayramin, 2013). The area of eroded soils in South Caucasus varies<br />

between 35 and 43 percent of total agricultural lands, aggravated by the mountainous topography of the<br />

region. In Central Asia as a whole, the total area affected by water erosion is over 30 million ha, and by wind<br />

erosion about 67 million ha: in Uzbekistan up to 80 percent of agricultural land is affected by water erosion,<br />

and in Tajikistan the area of agricultural lands affected by water erosion is estimated by different sources<br />

at between 60 and 97 percent (CACILM, 2006). Long-term observations in Russia show that soil erosion on<br />

average decreases the yield of leguminous crops by 15 percent, of wheat by 32 percent, of potatoes by 45<br />

percent, and of perennial grasses by 25 percent (State Committee of Russian Federation on Land <strong>Resources</strong><br />

and Land Planning, 1999).<br />

(2) <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

Organic matter is a key component of soil, controlling many vital functions (Jones et al., 2011). The loss of<br />

organic matter in soils is due both to erosion and to the increased rate of mineralization of organic carbon in<br />

arable soils. Methodologically, it is difficult to separate erosion and mineralization-driven loss of humus in<br />

soils. However, soils with negligible erosion loss commonly also lose organic carbon under cultivation. The<br />

rate of soil organic matter loss differs between mineral and peat soils. In the latter group, soil degradation<br />

after drainage may be fairly quick, producing an intensive flux of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and in<br />

places leading to complete mineralization of the organic layer and exposure of infertile underlying sediments.<br />

This threat is discussed in detail in Section 11.4.3 below.<br />

(3) <strong>Soil</strong> contamination<br />

Due to more than 200years of industrialization, soil contamination is a widespread problem in Europe.<br />

The most frequent contaminants are heavy metals and mineral oil. The number of sites where potentially<br />

polluting activities have taken place now stands at approximately three million. The issue is discussed in detail<br />

below in Section 11.4.1.<br />

(4) <strong>Soil</strong> acidification<br />

Acidification involves the loss of base cations (e.g. calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium) through<br />

leaching and their replacement by acidic compounds, mainly soluble aluminum and iron complexes.<br />

Acidification is always accompanied by a decrease in a soil’s capacity to neutralize acid, a process which is<br />

irreversible in nature except over very long periods. Regulatory controls initiated in recent decades to mitigate<br />

global warming have had a significant impact on the emissions of pollutants that cause acidification, mainly<br />

by decreasing SO 2<br />

emissions. By 2020, it is expected that the risk of ecosystem acidification will only be an<br />

issue in some hot spots, in particular in the border area between the Netherlands and Germany (EEA, 2010a).<br />

Recovery from acid deposition is characterised by decreased concentrations of sulphate, nitrate and aluminium<br />

in soils. An increase in pH and acid-neutralising capacity (ANC) coupled with higher concentrations of base<br />

cations would, in turn, improve the potential for biological recovery. However, given the delay in the response<br />

of soil to decreases in acid deposition, many decades are likely to be required for affected sites to recover fully.<br />

Additional information on trends in acidification is presented in the SOER 2010 Air Pollution Assessment (EEA,<br />

2010a).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

336<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


(5) Salinization and sodification<br />

In Europe, salinization is generally the result of the accumulation of salts from irrigation water and fertilizers.<br />

High levels of salt eventually make soils unsuitable for plant growth. Improper irrigation and the use of highly<br />

mineralized irrigation water lead to rapid accumulation of soluble salts in soil profiles. This form of salinization<br />

affects approximately 3.8 million ha in Europe. Though a number of practices of saline soil reclamation exist,<br />

most of them are expensive and not very effective, and all of them are site-specific. This makes salinity control<br />

a challenging task. Geographically this threat is localized in the drier parts of the region, mostly in central Asia,<br />

in southern Russia, in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Greece, Hungary, and Spain. This threat is discussed in more detail<br />

in Section 11.4.4 below.<br />

(6) Waterlogging<br />

Waterlogging occurs in many soils affected either by a high groundwater table or by rainwater stagnation<br />

due to poor permeability. Most waterlogged soils have excessive moisture due to natural causes, but<br />

waterlogging may also be caused by improper irrigation practices or through disturbance of landscape<br />

hydrology by construction, mining and traffic activities. The Russian Federation is the country that has the<br />

most extensive area of waterlogged soils in the world. Excessively moist soils, both mineral and organic,<br />

occupy 360 million ha (21 percent of the total area of the country). Among the agricultural lands of Russia<br />

23.9 million ha or 10.1 percent are waterlogged. Unlike Russia, where the distribution of waterlogging is<br />

mostly due to natural reasons, in Central Asia excessive moisture is caused by irrigation. In Uzbekistan, the<br />

groundwater table is less than 2 meters below the surface in about one-third of irrigated lands. The area of<br />

waterlogged land varies from 40 percent in the Fergana Valley to 80 percent in downstream Amu Darya. In dry<br />

areas, waterlogging is commonly associated with salinization.<br />

(7) Nutrient imbalance<br />

The situation with the balance of nutrients in soils is much better in the European region than in most<br />

other parts of the world. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the distribution of nutrients in soils.<br />

In Western Europe, the concentration of nutrients in soils is high due to application of high doses of fertilizer<br />

(Grizzetti, Bouraoui and Aloe, 2007). The absolute leader in the use of nitrogen fertilizers is the Netherlands,<br />

where in places the dose exceeds 170 kg of N per ha. Germany, France and the United Kingdom also apply<br />

nitrogen fertilizers intensively. The highest doses of phosphorus fertilizers – in doses higher than 21 kg P per ha<br />

– are used in some regions of Italy, Spain, France and Greece. These regions are running a risk of contaminating<br />

the ecosystem with excessive fertilizers (e.g. for France: Lemercier et al., 2008, Follain et al., 2009). In Eurasia,<br />

by contrast, the use of fertilizers is much lower, although Russia and Belorussia are major exporters of mineral<br />

fertilizers. The restricted use of fertilizers in these countries is in part due to the high natural productivity of<br />

their soils, but is also due in part to economic reasons. Underutilization of fertilizers in Central Asia is caused<br />

by the fact that small farmers cannot afford them or make money out of them.<br />

(8) Compaction<br />

Compaction can be induced by the use of heavy machinery in agriculture. Compaction reduces the capacity<br />

of soil to store and conduct water, makes it less permeable for plant roots and increases the risk of soil loss<br />

by water erosion. Estimates of areas of Europe at risk of soil compaction vary. Some authors estimate that<br />

36 percent of European subsoil has a high or very high susceptibility to compaction (Jones et al., 2011). Other<br />

sources report 32 percent of soils as being highly susceptible and 18 percent as being moderately affected<br />

(Jones et al., 2011). In Russia and Central Asia, soil compaction is also a challenge, especially where soils are<br />

naturally susceptible to compression, for example, in soils with vertic or natric properties, or in heavy textured<br />

soils. These kinds of soils are located mainly in the southern part of the Russian Federation, and in many places<br />

in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

337<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


(9) Sealing and capping<br />

Sealing occurs when agricultural or non-developed land is lost to urban sprawl, industrial development or<br />

transport infrastructure. It normally includes the removal of topsoil layers and leads to the loss of important soil<br />

functions, such as food production, water storage or temperature regulation. The population of the Europe is<br />

approximately 11 percent of the world population (740 million) and it has grown at a rate of 0.15 percent ayear<br />

during the last decade. The urbanization rate is high, particularly in the small and highly developed countries<br />

of Western Europe. It is the rapid and intensive expansion of urban and industrial development onto soils that<br />

makes soil sealing an important challenge for Europe. The issue is discussed in more detail in Section 11.4.2<br />

below.<br />

11.4. Major threats to soils in Europe and Eurasia<br />

11.4.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination<br />

Local contamination of soils is generally associated with intensive industrial activities, inadequate waste<br />

disposal, mining, military activities or accidents. Management of these contaminated sites is a tiered process<br />

starting with a preliminary survey (searching for sites that are likely to be contaminated), followed by site<br />

investigations where the actual extent of contamination and its environmental impacts are defined, and<br />

finally remedial and after-care measures.<br />

As discussed above (11.3.3), the number of sites where potentially polluting activities have taken place in<br />

Europe now stands at approximately three million. Due to improvements in data collection, the number of<br />

recorded sites is expected to grow as investigations continue. If current trends continue and no changes in<br />

legislation are made, the numbers reported above are expected to increase by 50 percent by 2025 (Jones et<br />

al., 2011; EEA, 2014). There is some evidence of progress in remediation of contaminated sites, although the<br />

rate is slow. In recent years, around 17 000 sites have already been treated while many industrial plants have<br />

attempted to change their production processes to generate less waste. In addition, most countries now have<br />

legislation to control industrial wastes and prevent accidents. In theory, this should limit the introduction of<br />

pollutants into the environment. However, recent events − such as the flooding of industrial sites in Germany<br />

during extreme weather events which led to the dispersal of organic pollutants, and the collapse of a dam at an<br />

aluminium plant in Hungary in October 2010 − show that soil contamination can still occur from potentially<br />

polluting sites. Trends in the deposition of heavy metals from industrial emissions are discussed in the SOER<br />

2010 Assessment on Air Pollution (EEA, 2010b).<br />

Diffuse soil contamination is one of the specific threats to soils in European region. Even though this form<br />

of pollution may be only barely apparent or may not even be directly apparent at all, it can cover very large<br />

areas. The contaminants include inorganic compounds such as metallic trace-elements and radionuclide, and<br />

organic compounds like natural and xenobiotic molecules. Radionuclides originate from nuclear accidents<br />

and nuclear tests, but there are also other sources such as fertilizer application (P). The most common<br />

xenobiotic chemicals include PAH, PCB and many pesticides still in use or inherited from the past (e.g. DDT<br />

and its metabolites).<br />

The economic feasibility of soil surveys is hindered by the diversity of contaminants – particularly of<br />

persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which are in constant evolution due to agrochemical developments –<br />

and by the transformation of organic compounds in soils by biological activity into diverse metabolites. The<br />

most widespread metallic trace elements in European soils comprise notably As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn,<br />

which are mobilized in one place but may then be transported to distant areas.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

338<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


The real extent of diffuse soil contamination by metallic trace elements is not clearly known. Even though<br />

some EU member states and other countries have already implemented long-term soil surveys, they lack a<br />

harmonized soil monitoring system.<br />

The case study of Austria (Section 11.5.1) includes the description of: (i) local and diffuse pollution affecting<br />

Austrian soils; (ii) the effect of regulation on contamination trends; and (iii) the remediation activities being<br />

carried out.<br />

11.4.2 | Sealing and capping<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> sealing is especially intensive in Western Europe. On average, built-up and other manmade areas<br />

account for around 4 percent of the total area in EEA countries (data exclude Greece, Switzerland and the<br />

United Kingdom), but not all of this is actually sealed (EEA, 2009). EU member States with high sealing rates<br />

exceeding 5 percent of the national territory are Malta, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg<br />

(EC, 2011).The EEA has produced a high resolution soil sealing layer map for the whole of Europe for the year<br />

2006 based on the analysis of satellite images. Much more detail can be found in the SOER Assessments on<br />

the Urban Environment (EEA, 2010c) and Land Use (EEA, 2010d), as well as in EC (2011).<br />

Productive soil continues to be lost to urban sprawl and transport infrastructure. Between 1990 and 2000,<br />

the sealed area in the EU-15 increased by 6 percent and at least 275 ha of soil were lost per day in the EU,<br />

amounting to 1 000 km² per year. Between 2000 and 2006, the EU average loss increased by 3 percent, but by<br />

14 percent in Ireland and Cyprus, and by 15 percent in Spain (EC, 2011). A study by Huber et al. (2008) provides<br />

an interesting insight into the development of baselines and thresholds to monitor soil sealing. See also the<br />

SOER 2010 Assessment on Land Use (EEA, 2010b) for additional details on urbanisation.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> sealing causes adverse effects on soil functions, or even their complete loss, and it prevents soil<br />

from fulfilling important ecological functions. Fluxes of gas, water and energy are reduced which affects,<br />

for example, soil biodiversity. The water retention capacity and groundwater recharge function of soil are<br />

reduced, resulting in several negative impacts such as a higher risk of floods. The reduction in the ability of soil<br />

to absorb rainfall leads to rapid flow of water from sealed surfaces to river channels, resulting in damaging<br />

flood peaks. Above-ground biodiversity is affected through fragmentation of habitats and the disruption of<br />

ecological corridors. These indirect impacts affect areas much larger than the sealed areas themselves. Builtup<br />

land is lost for other uses such as agriculture and forestry, as the soils which are sealed are often fertile and<br />

high value soils. <strong>Soil</strong> sealing appears to be almost irreversible and may result in an unnecessary loss of good<br />

quality soil. <strong>Soil</strong> sealing can lead to the contamination of soil and groundwater sources because of higher<br />

volumes of unfiltered runoff water from housing, roads and industrial sites. This is exacerbated during major<br />

flood events, as was demonstrated by the 2002 floods on the Elbe which deposited levels of dioxins, PCBs and<br />

mercury from industrial storage areas onto the soils of floodplains, well in excess of national health thresholds<br />

(Umlauf et al., 2005).<br />

In the Russian Federation the density of population is low and the area of settlements constitutes only 0.3<br />

percent of the national territory. However, the vicinities of megacities suffer intensive urban sprawl which<br />

takes land out of agriculture.<br />

11.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter decline<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic matter is essentially derived from residual plant and animal material, transformed (humified)<br />

by microbes and decomposed under the influence of temperature, moisture and ambient soil conditions. The<br />

stable fraction of organic substances in soil is known as complexed organic matter (previously referred as<br />

humus). <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter (SOM) plays a major role in maintaining soil functions because of its influence on<br />

soil structure and stability, water retention and soil biodiversity, and because it is a source of plant nutrients.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

339<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


The primary constituent of SOM is soil organic carbon. Some 45 percent of soils in Europe have low or very<br />

low organic matter content (0–2 percent organic carbon). This is particularly evident in the soils of many<br />

southern European countries, but is also the case in parts of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway<br />

and Belgium. A key driver is the conversion of woodland and grassland to arable crops.<br />

The soils of EU-27 Member States are estimated to store between 73 and 79 billion tonnes of carbon, which<br />

is equivalent to almost 50 times annual greenhouse gas emissions from the EU. However, intensive and<br />

continuous arable production may lead to a decline of soil organic matter. In 2009, European cropland emitted<br />

an average of 0.45 tonnes of CO 2<br />

per hectare, much of which resulted from land conversion (EEA, 2011).<br />

The conversion of peatlands and their use is particularly worrying. For instance, although only 8 percent<br />

of the farmland in Germany is on peatland, it is responsible for about 30 percent of the total greenhouse<br />

gas emissions of its whole farming sector (EC DG Environment and JRC, 2010). However, with appropriate<br />

management practices, soil organic matter can be maintained and even increased. Apart from peatlands,<br />

particular attention should be paid to the preservation of permanent pastures and the management of<br />

forests soils, as carbon age in the latter can be as high as 400-1 000 years (EC DG Environment and JRC,<br />

2010). Maintaining carbon stocks is essential for the fulfilment of the present and future emission reduction<br />

commitments of the EU.<br />

In Russia more than 56 million ha of mineral soils on agricultural land are characterized by the loss of organic<br />

matter (Shoba et al., 2010), in Ukraine, the area subject to loss of SOM is 18.4 million ha (Laktionova et al.,<br />

2010), and in Moldova more than 1 million ha (Leah, 2012). Turkey was reported to be losing SOM from about<br />

70 percent of its agricultural soils (Senol and Bayramin, 2013), but the rate and extent of dehumification are<br />

unknown yet. In the South Caucasus republics, the loss of soil organic matter is not well documented, largely<br />

because in mountainous countries it is hard to separate out erosion and mineralization-driven loss of humus.<br />

A similar situation exists in the data reported for Central Asia: the cultivation of virgin lands in Kazakhstan<br />

resulted in the loss of approximately 570 million tonnes of carbon from soils, but a significant part has been<br />

transported by the wind.<br />

Several factors are responsible for a decline in SOM and many of them relate to human activity: conversion of<br />

grassland, forests and natural vegetation to arable land; deep ploughing of arable soils; drainage; fertiliser use;<br />

tillage of peat soils; crop rotations with reduced proportion of grasses; soil erosion; and wild fires (Kibblewhite<br />

et al., 2005). High soil temperatures and moist conditions accelerate soil respiration and thus increase CO 2<br />

emissions (Brito et al., 2005). Excess nitrogen in the soil from high fertiliser application rates and/or low plant<br />

uptake can cause an increase in mineralisation of organic carbon which, in turn, leads to an increased loss of<br />

carbon from soils. Maximum nitrogen values are reached in areas with high livestock populations, intensive<br />

fruit and vegetable cropping, or cereal production with imbalanced fertilisation practices. While in extreme<br />

situations, the surplus soil nitrogen can be as high as 300 kg N ha -1 (EC, 2002), estimates show that 15 percent<br />

of land in the EU-27 exhibits a surplus in excess of 40 kg N ha -1 . For reference, while rates vary from crop to crop,<br />

the IRENA Mineral Fertiliser Consumption Indicator (EEA, 2005a) estimates that average application rates of<br />

nitrogen fertiliser for EU-15 in 2000 ranged from 8 to 179 kg N ha -1 .<br />

There is growing realisation of the role of soil, in particular peat, as a store of carbon and recognition of soil’s<br />

role in managing terrestrial fluxes of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2<br />

). Other than in tropical ecosystems,<br />

soil contains about twice as much organic carbon as above-ground vegetation. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon stocks<br />

in the EU-27 are estimated to be between 73 to 79 billion tonnes, of which about 50 percent is to be found<br />

in the peatlands and forest soils of Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom (Schils et al., 2008). Peat soils<br />

contain the highest concentration of organic matter in all soils. Peatlands are currently under threat from<br />

unsustainable practices such as drainage, clearance for agriculture, fires, climate change and extraction. The<br />

current area of peatland in the EU is estimated at more than 318 000 km 2 , mainly in the northern latitudes.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

340<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


While there is no harmonised exhaustive inventory of peat stocks in Europe, the CLIMSOIL report (Schils<br />

et al., 2008) estimated that more than 20 percent (65 000 km 2 ) of all peatlands have been drained for<br />

agriculture, 28 percent (almost 90 000 km 2 ) for forestry and 0.7 percent (2 273 km 2 ) for peat extraction. The<br />

degradation of organic soils is especially pronounced in Belorussia, where about 190 thousand ha of peat soils<br />

are strongly degraded: the peat layer was completely mineralized, and infertile sands were exposed on an area<br />

of 18.2 thousand ha. In the Russian Federation, the mineralization of peat has occurred on extensive drained<br />

areas with Histosols located mainly in the north of the European part of the country. The total area of drained<br />

peatland in Russia was estimated as 3.86 million ha (Inisheva, 2005), but the area of deeply degraded drained<br />

peat soils is unknown. Extensive areas of previously drained peatland have been abandoned as agriculture<br />

has shifted to more climatically favorable regions closer to markets. These dry peatlands are subject to fires in<br />

dry summer periods; in 2010 peat fires in Central European Russia caused an ecological catastrophe, driving<br />

millions of people from their homes and disrupting air transportation because of dense smoke over thousands<br />

of square kilometers. Another common practice in Russia is forest drainage, designed to improve forest<br />

productivity in waterlogged areas. Currently about 3 million ha of forested organic soils are drained in Russia,<br />

mainly in the European part. Though productivity has increased, the loss of organic carbon from soils is also<br />

evident. In Ireland, peatlands are widely used for energy production. Annual production of peat in the country<br />

peaked in 1995 at 8.0 million tonnes (Devlin and Talbot, 2014).<br />

11.4.4 | Salinization and sodification<br />

While naturally saline soils exist in certain parts of Europe, the main concern is the increase in salt content in<br />

soils resulting from human interventions such as inappropriate irrigation practices, use of salt-rich irrigation<br />

water and/or poor drainage conditions. Locally, the use of salt for de-icing can also be a contributing factor.<br />

The primary method of controlling soil salinity is to use excess water to flush the salts from the soil. In most<br />

cases where salinization is a problem, this must inevitably be done with high quality irrigation water.<br />

Thresholds to define saline soils are highly specific and depend on the type of salt and land use practices<br />

(Huber et al., 2008). Excess levels of salts are believed to affect around 3.8 million ha in Europe (EEA, 1995).<br />

While naturally saline soils occur in Spain, Hungary, Greece and Bulgaria, artificially induced salinization is<br />

affecting significant parts of Sicily and the Ebro Valley in Spain and more locally in other parts of Italy, Hungary,<br />

Greece, Portugal, France and Slovakia (Figure 11.2).<br />

In the post-Soviet countries, saline soils cover the most extensive areas in Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan,<br />

Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan (Figure 11.3). In other countries saline soils are present only locally,<br />

either on marine marsh deposits or in areas of salt mining. In Belorus, salt-affected soils occupy less than 1<br />

thousand hectares around the potassium fertilizer mines in Solikamsk region. The area occupied by saline soils<br />

in different countries is shown in Table 11.2.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

341<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Country<br />

Area of salt-affected soil<br />

(million ha)<br />

Data source<br />

Kazakhstan 111.5 Borovskii, 1982<br />

Russia 54.0 Shishov and Pankova, 2006<br />

Uzbekistan 20.8 Kuziev and Sektimenko, 2009<br />

Turkmenistan 14.1 Pankova, 1992<br />

Ukraine 4.0 Novikova, 2009<br />

Turkey 1.5 Senol and Bayramin, 2013<br />

Spain 0.63 Tóth et al., 2008<br />

Hungary 0.56 Tóth and Szendrei, 2006<br />

Azerbaijan 0.51 Ismayilov, 2013<br />

Table 11.2 The areas of saline soils in the countries with major extent of soil salinization in the European region<br />

Kazakhstan<br />

The area of saline soils in Kazakhstan, including Solonetz, alkaline soils, and complexes of Solonetz with<br />

other soils, is 111.55 million ha, or 41 percent of the national territory (Borovskii, 1982). Saline soils are present<br />

everywhere in the country except in mountainous areas. They are common in the steppe zone, where they<br />

cover about 30 percent of the area. In dry steppe, semi-desert and desert zones these soils occupy up to 50<br />

percent of the area. Salt-affected soils are represented mainly by Solonetz and alkaline soils. Solonchaks cover<br />

only 1–3 percent of the area of salt-affected soils in the steppe zone, and 7–13 percent of the area of salt-affected<br />

soils in the semi-desert and desert zones.<br />

Russian Federation<br />

The area of salt-affected soils in Russia, including Solonetz, alkaline soils and combinations of salt-affected<br />

soils with other soil groups, is 54 million ha or 3.3 percent of the total area of the country. The category of<br />

salt-affected soils includes all the soils with a salic horizon starting within the first 1 meter. Salt-affected soils<br />

in Russia are located in the European part of the country and in Eastern Siberia within the steppe, dry steppe<br />

and semi-desert zones. The major part of the area is occupied by Solonetz and alkaline soils. In Eastern Siberia<br />

and in the Far East, salt-affected soils are localized in closed inter-mountain basins with dry steppe landscapes<br />

and semiarid to arid climate. In Yakutia (Sakha), salt-affected soils form over permafrost in thermo-karst<br />

depressions (so-called alases) in taiga larch forest. Sporadically saline soils are present along the northern and<br />

eastern shores of the country, but their area is insignificant (Shishov and Pankova, 2006).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

342<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Prepared by I. Alyabina<br />

Figure 11.2 <strong>Soil</strong> salinization on the territory of the European region. Source: Afonin et al., 2008; Toth et al., 2008; GDRS, 1987.<br />

Uzbekistan<br />

The area of salt-affected soils in Uzbekistan is 20.8 million ha, or 46.5 percent of the country’s territory.<br />

Saline soils are everywhere in the country except in mountainous regions and well drained flood valleys. Saltaffected<br />

soils are represented by Solonchaks in closed depressions and the bottom of the largely dried-up Aral<br />

Sea, by Salic Calcisols in uplifted areas such as the Ustyurt plateau and the Kyzyl-Kum desert, by Takyric Salic<br />

Fluvisols in the alluvial and deltaic plains, and by extensive irrigated soils of various grades of human-induced<br />

salinization.<br />

Turkmenistan<br />

The area of salt-affected soils in Turkmenistan is 14.1 million ha or 28.7 percent of the total area of the<br />

country. These soils are distributed all over the country, but the major concentration is in the western part of<br />

the country close to the Caspian Sea. Most of these soils are not classified as Solonchaks and belong to the<br />

groups of Salic Calcisols and Takyric Salic Calcisols.<br />

Ukraine<br />

The area covered by salt-affected soils in Ukraine is about 4 million ha or 6.6 percent of the national territory<br />

(Novikova, 2009). Most of these lands are not used in agriculture; they are located largely in the southern and<br />

eastern parts of the country within the steppe and forested steppe zones. Most of these soils are classified as<br />

Solonetz and other soils with various grades of alkalinity.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

343<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Turkey<br />

The major areas with salt-affected soils in Turkey are: Konya-Eregli, the Aksaray and Malya plains of Central<br />

Anatolia, and the alluvial plains of lower Seyhan, Igdır, Menemen, Bafra, Söke, Acıpayam and Salihli. The<br />

distribution of the salt-affected arable lands is: 60 percent slightly saline, 19.6 percent saline, 0.4 percent<br />

alkali and 8 percent saline-alkali. Although sodium salts are the main components of the salt-affected soils,<br />

there are also magnesium soils in Denizli-Acıpayam, potassium-nitrate-alkali soils in Nigde- Bor, Kayseri, and<br />

gypsiferous soils in Central Anatolia.<br />

Spain<br />

In Spain 3 percent of the 3.5 million ha of irrigated land is severely affected, reducing markedly its agricultural<br />

potential, while another 15 percent is at serious risk. <strong>Soil</strong> salinization is a frequent problem in arid and semiarid<br />

regions like Southeast Spain (Hernández Bastida, Vela de Oro and Ortiz Silla, 2004). In these areas, demand for<br />

water for agriculture and increasing frequency of drought events have led farmers to irrigate with poor quality<br />

water. This has caused processes of soil degradation and salinization, limiting crop growth and impairing<br />

productive capacity (Pérez-Sirvent et al., 2003; Acosta et al., 2011).<br />

Hungary<br />

In Hungary Solonchak soils, which are by definition saline soils, occupy a total area of only 4.7 thousand<br />

ha. They are mainly located in low-lying areas, typically along the shorelines of saline/sodic lakes in the region<br />

between the Danube and Tisza Rivers, but they also occur in patches east of the Tisza River. These soils are not<br />

cropped, but sustain native halophyte vegetation which is grazed. Solonchak-Solonetz soils with a total area of<br />

65.9 thousand ha are also found largely between the Danube and Tisza Rivers, but above deeper groundwater<br />

levels of around one metre. These soils also sustain a native halophyte vegetation which is grazed. Mollic<br />

Gleyic Solonetz soils occupy a total area of 274.9 thousand ha and are characterized by large exchangeable<br />

sodium percent and a not very high salt content. Mollic Solonetz soils, with a total area 212.2 thousand ha,<br />

have only minor limitations for cultivation of crops and are typically under arable farming.<br />

Azerbaijan<br />

The area of salt-affected soils in Azerbaijan is estimated to be 510 thousand ha or 5.9 percent of the<br />

territory of the country. The saline soils are located mainly on the coastal plain of the Caspian Sea, in the Kura-<br />

Araksinskaya depression and in the Salyan, Mugansk, and Milsk plains. These soils are represented mainly by<br />

Solonchaks, Salic Gleysols and, in rare cases, by Salic Calcisols.<br />

While several studies show that salinization levels in soils in countries such as Spain, Greece and Hungary<br />

are increasing (De Paz et al., 2004), systematic data on trends across Europe are not available.<br />

11.5 | Case studies<br />

11.5.1 | Case study: Austria<br />

Austria is a relatively small country that is land-locked in central Europe and shares borders with eight<br />

countries (Gentile et al., 2009). Austria’s location in the middle of Europe gives rise to specific environmental<br />

issues such as the pressures from intensive freight transit traffic (e.g. air emissions, habitat disruption) and<br />

the trans-boundary exchange of acidifying air pollutants and tropospheric ozone precursors (e.g. damage to<br />

forests and soil). In addition, only 37 percent of the national territory is suitable for permanent settlements.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

344<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


This is due to the country’s geo-morphological conditions with more than 60 percent of the territory occupied<br />

by mountains. As a consequence, urban sprawl and land consumption occurs in restricted areas, with resulting<br />

high pressures on the environment.<br />

Overall, the Austrian soils are in a good condition, but their ecological functionality is at risk from diffuse<br />

and local accumulation of pollutants, intensive use of land, sealing and erosion. The more affected areas are<br />

located in the Alpine region, where forest soils are threatened by air deposition, and in urban areas, where<br />

sealing and contamination put urban soils under a growing pressure. Sealing is also present in rural areas due<br />

to the increasing urban sprawl and new road construction. In arable land, According environmental measures<br />

within Cross Compliance in arable land a treatment of the soil is prohibited, if the soil is water-satisfied. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

erosion is higher on steeper slopes and land under permanent crops (vineyards, orchards), as well as on land<br />

cultivated with maize, sugar beet, potatoes and vegetables.<br />

The use of heavy machinery, especially in case of wet soil conditions, often results in the compaction of the<br />

topsoil, which can reach in some cases the subsoil layer. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction mainly occurs in areas with intensive<br />

agriculture and, locally, in other areas due to forest management activities. According environmental measures<br />

within Cross Compliance in arable land a treatment of the soil is prohibited, if the soil is water-satisfied.<br />

Floods happen occasionally in the floodplains of eastern Austria after extraordinary weather conditions<br />

(heavy rainfalls) whereas landslides occur quite often in the alpine regions with steep slopes. Adequate<br />

management measures for the protection of forests and afforestation, as well as technical engineering<br />

measures, are being implemented to prevent the consequences of such events and reduce the risks.<br />

Salinization is found in the areas around the lake Neusiedl, which is located in the north-eastern part, at<br />

the Hungarian border. Salinization is causing problems only in small areas with intensively managed and<br />

irrigated agricultural soils. Information on decline of organic matter is scarce. Some areas of arable land show<br />

low organic matter content. The evaluation of the Austrian environment programme for agriculture (ÖPUL)<br />

concerning organic matter contents in soil showed positive trends.<br />

Contamination from heavy metals is mainly due to long-range trans-boundary air pollution, especially in<br />

forest soils due to the high filter capacity of vegetation cover and the barrier effects of the Alps to air mass<br />

circulation. Contamination by heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants can also be found in restricted<br />

areas originating from different sources, e.g. local industrial sources, traffic especially near bigger population<br />

centres or agricultural sources.<br />

The restructuring of the industrial sector and in particular the decline of the heavy industry in the 1990s<br />

did not have observable effects on environmental pressures. Despite the decrease of the overall production,<br />

the contribution of this sector to the overall emissions is still considerable. Adverse effects of soil degradation<br />

are still to be expected, despite the continuing improvement in the implementation of regulations and the<br />

reduction of pollutant emissions, since many pollutants (e.g. heavy metals) are accumulating in the soil. The<br />

major indirect impacts are on biodiversity and the quality of groundwater resources.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

345<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


The threats to soil in Austria<br />

Contamination<br />

Diffuse contamination<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> surveys targeted at the four most relevant heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium and copper) showed<br />

increased lead and cadmium concentrations in topsoil with respect to background values in the regions of the<br />

Northern and Southern Limestone Alps. This may be attributed both to local sources of pollution and to longrange<br />

trans-boundary air pollution. Lead enrichment is particularly high in grassland and forest soils – the<br />

latter due to the high filtering effect of the vegetation cover. The guidance values for lead established by the<br />

Austrian Standard (Önorm, 1975, 2004 1 ) were exceeded in more than 5 percent of monitored grassland sites,<br />

and in more than 3 percent of forest sites. Cadmium concentrations exceeded the guidance value in 5 percent<br />

of the monitoring sites in forests and in 6 percent of the sites in grassland areas.<br />

On the other hand, soil pollution with mercury and copper only occurs in restricted areas. In particular,<br />

copper contamination can be found mostly in the surroundings of industrial sites processing copper ore and<br />

in areas with intensive animal husbandry. The latter is due to the application of high amounts of pig manure<br />

with high copper content, of which the source is copper-enriched ready-made food. Other sources of copper<br />

inputs in soil are sewage sludge and compost as well as the application of pesticides containing copper. About<br />

2 percent of the forest and grassland monitored sites exceeded the guidance value for copper.<br />

Contamination from Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) was found in a limited number of sites, some<br />

of which required to be cleaned-up. POP pollution mainly occurs in urban areas and around industries. It can<br />

also derive from long-range trans-boundary air pollution. Emissions of POPs have been substantially reduced<br />

in the past years. This should have resulted in lower concentrations in the soil. However, a systematic survey<br />

targeted at organic pollutants in soil has not been carried out. For this and other reasons, such as the low<br />

mobility of these pollutants and the appearance on the market of new chemical products, the importance of<br />

POP pollution may be expected to increase in the future (Umweltbundesamt, 2004, 2007b).<br />

Contamination from local sources<br />

In Austria, soil contamination requiring clean up may be present at 2 500 sites. Potentially polluting<br />

activities are estimated to have occurred at 80 000 sites (including the 2 500 sites already mentioned) and<br />

investigation is needed to establish whether remediation is required. Approximately 70 heavily contaminated<br />

sites have been cleaned up in the past two decades. Industrial production and commercial services, municipal<br />

and industrial waste treatment, and oil storage are reported to be the most important sources of heavy<br />

contamination. National reports indicate that heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, cyanides<br />

and mineral oil are the most frequent soil contaminants at investigated sites. Nearly two-thirds of the<br />

remediation expenditure come from public budgets. Although considerable efforts have been made already,<br />

it will take decades to clean up the legacy of contamination. New contamination is not expected due to the<br />

implementation of prevention measures in place.<br />

Salinization<br />

In Austria, salinization is of little relevance as compared to other soil threats. According to an agricultural<br />

soil mapping survey carried out in the period 1958-1970, the areas where soil is affected by salts amounted<br />

to only 2 500 ha. Conditions for potential salinization do occur in small areas in Eastern Austria. These are<br />

areas with a negative water balance, salt-sensitive soils, a low groundwater table and salty groundwater.<br />

1 An ÖNORM standard is a national standard published by the Austrian Standards Institute. ÖNORMs are voluntary standards drawn up in committees of the<br />

Austrian Standards Institute<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

346<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Future changes in climate and land management practices could lead to the salinization of soils also in these<br />

areas. In addition, soda-containing soils are estimated to cover only 2 000 ha. In these areas, strict rules for<br />

agricultural production apply.<br />

Erosion<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion in Austria is mainly increased by unsustainable agricultural practices, construction of buildings<br />

and roads, and the use of leisure infrastructures. National estimates report that about 13 percent of the<br />

agricultural land or more than 5 percent of the total territory is potentially under a high risk for water erosion.<br />

The spatial distribution of potential erosion risk is very heterogeneous. The most affected areas include the<br />

productive areas of the southeast and northeast plains and hills, the Alpine foreland and the Carinthian basin<br />

(Strauss and Klaghofer, 2006).<br />

Except for the results of some scientific studies, Information on wind erosion is scarce. Loss of soil by wind<br />

has been observed in the lowlands of Eastern Austria. Areas at risk are sandy soils and, in the dry season, some<br />

areas covered with black soils (chernozems). In the past, some measures, such as reforestation of lowlands,<br />

were carried out to protect soil against wind. New windbreaks are planted annually, thus increasing the<br />

protected areas by several thousand hectares per year. The presence of wind erosion risk in sandy areas has<br />

been acknowledged since the 18th century. This early recognition of the problem and the measures adopted<br />

have resulted in the stabilisation of erosion in these areas (Strauss and Klaghofer, 2006).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion is not expected to increase in the future due to the implementation of prevention and reduction<br />

measures such as the measures included in the national Agri-Environmental Programme. In 2008 these<br />

measures reduced the soil erosion rate by 3 to 18% depending on the region, in average by 10 percent (AGES,<br />

2011). However, major pressures may come from future climate and land use changes (conversion of grassland<br />

into arable land) or significant changes in crop rotation, although these are not very likely to occur.<br />

Decline in soil organic matter<br />

According to the results of a recent monitoring programme that measured the content of organic carbon<br />

in topsoil, more than half of all grassland and forest sites in Austria have a content of organic matter in topsoil<br />

of over 8 percent, which is comparatively high by global standards. On the other hand, in arable land, most of<br />

the monitored sites show an organic matter content ranging from 2 percent to 4 percent (medium by global<br />

standards), while a low or very low content (< 2 percent) is found in a quarter of the sites. In the areas with low<br />

organic matter content, the natural soil functions will be at risk in the long run (Umweltbundesamt, 2004).<br />

Measurements of organic matter content in topsoil also provide an indication of the content in soil organic<br />

carbon.<br />

Overall, the organic carbon stock in Austrian soils is not expected to decline in the future, due to the<br />

implementation of soil organic matter preservation measures in agriculture. Such measures of the national<br />

Agri-Environmental Programme have increased the humus content of arable soils from 1991-1995 until 2006-<br />

2009 by 0.1 up to 0.4 percent depending on region (AGES, 2011).<br />

Sealing<br />

Following the general trend in Europe, the sealing of the soil due to the increase of built-up areas and<br />

transport infrastructure has shown a growing trend in Austria in the past decades, although population has<br />

increased only slowly.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

347<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


In total, about 7 percent (or around 5 500 km²) of the country area is occupied by buildings or transport<br />

infrastructures, and about 56 percent of this area is sealed. About half of the new residential buildings in 2001<br />

were single family dwellings or semi-detached houses which, in comparison to multi-family residences or<br />

other high-density structures, occupy a considerably larger surface area (Umweltbundesamt, 2006). In the<br />

period 2012-2014, the average increase in built-up areas was about 19 ha day -1 . This resulted in a daily increment<br />

of soil actually sealed of 10 ha in 2012 and 2014. This figure still exceeds by a factor eight the relevant policy<br />

target (Umweltbundesamt, 2007a). These high rates may lead to the saturation of the available space in some<br />

regions. In Vorarlberg, for example, 29 percent of the permanent settlement area is already built-up.<br />

These increases are due to changes in the standard of living and in lifestyles and to the development of<br />

associated settlement and transport activities, rather than to population growth. This is particularly evident<br />

in rural regions where the built-up area continues to grow despite a net decrease in population.<br />

Hydro-geological risks<br />

Erosion and erosion control have been a major issue for a long time in Austria, due to the country’s specific<br />

geo-morphological configuration. More than 60 percent of the territory is occupied by mountains. The focus<br />

of past and current activities is on the control of torrents and avalanches, as these are major threats to human<br />

life in alpine environments (Strauss and Klaghofer, 2006).<br />

According to BMLFUW (Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water<br />

Managemen 2 ), about 67 percent of the territory may be classified as either part of a torrent watershed,<br />

avalanche watershed or a general risk area. The regional coverage ranges from 16 percent in Burgenland to<br />

91 percent in Tyrol. The amount of budget available for measures against these risks increased from 70 million<br />

EUR in 2001 to 148 million EUR in 2009.<br />

In case of extraordinary weather conditions (heavy rainfalls), floods happen occasionally in the floodplains<br />

of eastern Austria. The flood events in August 2002 affected large parts of the national territory. Particularly<br />

Upper Austria and Lower Austria suffered heavy damage, as floods reached areas that were previously<br />

considered as safe. More details on this event can be found in the special chapter on floods of the 7th national<br />

State of Environment report (Umweltbundesamt, 2004).<br />

Cross-cutting issues<br />

Brownfields<br />

In general, the remediation of contaminated sites based on fit-for-use remediation goals should be seen not<br />

only as bringing an improvement to the status of the environment through the restoration of soil functions but<br />

also as bringing benefits to economy and society. In Austria, there is a potential for brownfield redevelopment.<br />

The average consumption of green-field areas for housing and traffic was 7 ha day -1 in 2014. On the other hand,<br />

only 37 percent of the national territory is suitable for permanent settlements.<br />

According to an unofficial definition, brownfields are sites of formerly industrial or commercial land, now<br />

derelict or underused, or sites that have been affected by former uses of the site or surrounding land. The<br />

latter may require intervention before they can be returned to beneficial use, particularly where there are<br />

contamination problems. The number of brownfield sites in Austria is in the range of 3 000-6 000, covering<br />

an area between 8 000 and 13 000 ha. According to estimates based on their previous use, about 85 percent<br />

of the industrial brownfield sites may present no or little contamination problem and could be revitalised and<br />

reused without public funding for remediation.<br />

2 http://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/en.html<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

348<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Considering an increase of industrial brownfield sites of about 3 ha per day, about a quarter of the annual<br />

land requirement for housing and economic activities could be saved by reconverting brownfields to a<br />

productive use. Some measures have been proposed to this end. These include policy measures, sustainable<br />

and innovative land management, and mechanisms for the involvement of stakeholder groups. However,<br />

redevelopment activities are yet to be started. For more details see (Umweltbundesamt, 2007b).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> services<br />

The main soil services in Austria include:<br />

• protection of groundwater and spring water in mountain areas, resulting in the availability of water<br />

in sufficient quality and quantities (about 99 percent of drinking water supplies originate from<br />

groundwater and spring water)<br />

• high diversity and mosaic distribution of geology and soils, which enables a high level of diversity of<br />

landscapes and biodiversity<br />

• availability of highly productive soils for agricultural and forestry production<br />

• availability of soils for building purposes, although this function is limited due to the relatively small<br />

permanent settlement area available (37 percent of the total area of the country)<br />

• The main impacts of soil degradation in Austria are:<br />

• biodiversity decline from soil sealing and contamination<br />

• impairment of groundwater quality from diffuse pollution and local contamination - there may be<br />

2 500 sites in Austria needing remediation, of which less 3 percent have been cleaned up since 1989<br />

• destruction of natural landscapes from soil sealing and unsustainable agricultural practices<br />

Hot spots<br />

The Alpine region is an environmentally sensitive area with a high level of diversity of landscapes, soils,<br />

flora and fauna. This region is under threat of acidification and contamination from deposition of air-borne<br />

pollutants on the one hand, and from erosion and landslides because of its steep slopes on the other hand.<br />

Some industrial areas are seriously contaminated from diffuse sources. These include, in particular, the city<br />

of Linz, the Inn valley in the Tyrol, and Arnoldstein in Carinthia. In addition, a high concentration of sites which<br />

are potentially contaminated can be found in the most urbanised and industrialised regions, in particular the<br />

cities of Vienna, Linz and Salzburg, the Inn valley in the Tyrol and the Mur and Mürz valley in Styria.<br />

Outlook<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> resources in Austria are on average in a good condition; however soil functions are still being threatened<br />

by the deposition of airborne pollutants, by a legacy of contamination in industrial and urban areas, and by the<br />

continuing increase in the built-up area.<br />

There are some uncertainties on future trends of soil contamination due to the lack of data on the presence<br />

of organic pollutants in soil and the appearance on the market of new chemical products whose effects on<br />

the environment are not fully understood (Umweltbundesamt, 2004 and 2007b). However, the inputs of<br />

pollutants (in particular lead, cadmium and POPs) in the soil are expected to decrease, since emissions and<br />

thus depositions are diminishing due to the implementation of regulations and preventive measures in place.<br />

On the other hand, acidifying substances, in particular NOx from traffic sources, are expected to increase.<br />

Moreover, soil contamination and its adverse effects are still to be expected in the long run since many<br />

pollutants (e.g. heavy metals and POPs) have low mobility and high persistence and accumulate in the soil. In<br />

addition, the increase of the emissions of acidifying substances may result in an increase of the pressures on<br />

forests and forest soils. The major indirect impacts will be in terms of the loss of biodiversity and the quality<br />

of groundwater resources.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

349<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


In urban and industrial areas, no new contamination is expected due to prevention measures in place.<br />

Nevertheless, the clean-up of historical contamination will continue to pose a challenge. In fact, although<br />

considerable efforts have been made already, in particular in the investigation and monitoring of contamination,<br />

a slow progress is made in the implementation of remedial measures. According to the national vision for<br />

contaminated sites the identification of all historically contaminated sites and the remediation measures at<br />

heavily contaminated sites shall be completed until 2050 (BMLFUW, 2008).<br />

The amount of soil actually sealed through the construction of buildings and infrastructures is currently<br />

increasing at a rate of 10 ha day -1 . This figure exceeds ten times the national 2010 sustainability target. As in<br />

Austria only 37 percent of the territory is suitable for permanent settlements, high increases of built-up areas<br />

may also lead to the saturation of the available space. This is more likely to occur in some regions currently<br />

registering the highest rates, especially in rural areas. On the other hand, the redevelopment of brownfields<br />

and the clean-up of historical contamination are expected to provide opportunities for the reduction of the<br />

consumption of green-land, as well as opportunities for economic and technological development, and job<br />

creation. Brownfields in Austria could cover about one quarter of the current needs for land.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation in agricultural areas, especially erosion, compaction and decline in organic matter content<br />

is not expected to increase in the future due to the implementation of prevention and reduction measures such<br />

as notably those measures included in the national Agri-Environmental Programme. For the same reasons,<br />

the organic carbon stock in Austrian soils is expected to remain stable on average.<br />

Climate change and the development of the tourist sector may result in increased hydro-geological risks.<br />

Investigations and monitoring of historical contamination are quite advanced. More is known on<br />

contaminated sites but remediation activities are progressing slowly. If current trends are maintained, it will<br />

take decades to clean-up a legacy of contamination. In Austria, remediation is aimed at removing the source<br />

of contamination and restoring the soil functions to a certain extent. The objective is to make the soil again<br />

fit for specific uses, in particular for the protection of groundwater resources (ultimately, the source for about<br />

50 percent of drinking water supplies). Further progress with the clean-up of historical contamination and<br />

brownfield redevelopment will also provide opportunities for the reduction of land consumption, economic<br />

and technological development, and job creation.<br />

11.5.2 | Case study: Ukraine<br />

About 60 percent of the soils of Ukraine are Chernozems – soils known for their unique structure, chemical<br />

properties and inherent fertility. These soils are distinguished by a very deep (more than 1 m) humus-enriched<br />

layer, perfectly expressed granular structure, almost optimal bulk density, and a good and satisfactory stock<br />

of nutrients. However, these favourable soil properties are only present in soils under virgin ecosystems.<br />

Chernozems are the best soils in the world (the ‘tsar of soil’) according to Vasiliy Dokuchaev, the founder of<br />

modern soil science. However, are very sensitive to anthropogenic intervention. In particular, when intensively<br />

tilled, they rapidly degrade. As a result, in recentyears these soils have been characterized in Ukraine by a<br />

significant decline of their potential productivity, equal to 80-90 million tonnes of grain annually, or up to 2<br />

tonnes per head of the population. It has proved almost impossible to maintain good ecological conditions for<br />

these soils.<br />

The fragility of the soils of Ukraine is well known and has been the subject of many studies. Nevertheless,<br />

this has not deterred intensive development which has led to their severe degradation. About a third of arable<br />

land is eroded, 30 percent of organic matter has been lost, approximately 40 percent of soils have a compacted<br />

layer, and stocks of nutrients have noticeably decreased. Where soils have been improved, numerous problems<br />

have also been observed (Balyuk and Medvedev, 2012).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

350<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Comparison of cultivated soils with virgin analogues shows that for the last 40-50 years the most typical<br />

processes were (Bulygin, Breus and Seminozenko, 1998; Grekov et al., 2011; Medvedev, 2012):<br />

• Loss of humus in arable soils: at the end of the 1980s, 0.5-1.5 tonnes per ha were being lost annually.<br />

Between 2005 and 2009 the rate of organic matter loss was 0.42-0.51 tonnes per ha annually.<br />

• Increasing deficiency of labile nutrients, especially nitrogen (declining from -41.4 kg per ha in 2001 to –<br />

56.4 kg per ha in 2009) and potassium (declining from -32.9 to – 64.2 kg per ha between 2001 and 2009).<br />

• Acidification of Chernozems, especially in the Cherkassy and Sumy regions, where the drop in pH was<br />

0.3-0.5 units.<br />

• Compaction, particularly in the western forested steppe but widespread on 40 percent of arable land<br />

nationwide. Compaction is characterized by a destruction of structure, lumpiness and crusting.<br />

• Reduction of the depth of upper layer of the soil due to erosion, reaching several centimeters in<br />

Chernozems according to modelled data, and also in the drained soils of Polissiya.<br />

• Secondary alkalinization and salinization of irrigated soils, accompanied by a reduction of peat depth.<br />

Among other negative processes of local importance are: contamination with radionuclides and heavy<br />

metals; waterlogging; flooding; iron, calcium carbonate and aluminum accumulation; desertification; and<br />

alkalinization and soda formation.<br />

The types and extent of degradation of arable soils in Ukraine are shown in Table 11.3 and Figure 11.3. The<br />

estimation of soil degradation has been carried out using the technique proposed by van Lynden (1997). The<br />

sources of data have been: (i) the results of the agrichemical certification of fields conducted every five years<br />

since 1965; and (ii) the database of the National Scientific Center (the ‘O.N. Sokolovsky Institute for <strong>Soil</strong> Science<br />

and Agrochemistry Research’). The database has provided information on the morphological, physical,<br />

physicochemical and chemical properties of more than 2 500 soil profiles, and also information from long<br />

field experience on tillage and application of fertilizers (Laktionova et al., 2010; Grekov et al., 2011).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation in Ukraine is mainly the result of the use of inappropriate farming technology. Chernozems<br />

are vulnerable to mechanical deformation due to their low bulk density before tillage in the spring, and also<br />

to the influence of moisture owing to the low stability of the swelling smectite minerals which predominate<br />

in their mineralogical composition.<br />

The problem has been aggravated because state and regional programmes of soil protection slowed down<br />

significantly after 1991. These programmes had obtained important results in protecting and restoring soils up<br />

to the end of the 1980s but during the last two decades measures aimed at improving soil fertility have been<br />

significantly reduced.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation is a major problem in Ukraine. There is little realization of the threat it represents for the<br />

present and especially future generations. Issues include the absence of effective mechanisms to enforce laws<br />

on soil protection, and unbalanced and insecure land tenure. Combating soil degradation requires raising<br />

awareness at all levels of society, wide educational activity, active dissemination of knowledge, and gradual<br />

formation of a new attitude to soil resources.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

351<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Type of degradation<br />

Extent,<br />

percent of<br />

arable land<br />

Fertility decline and reduced humus content 43.2<br />

Compaction 38.2<br />

Sealing and crusting 37.5<br />

Water erosion, surface wash 16.8<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification 14.1<br />

Waterlogging 12.9<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> pollution by radionuclides 10.9<br />

Wind erosion: loss of topsoil 10.5<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> contamination with pesticides and other organic contaminants 9.2<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> contamination with heavy metals 8.0<br />

Salinization / alkalinization 4.3<br />

Water erosion: terrain deformation by gullying 2.6<br />

Off-site effects of water erosion 2.5<br />

Lowering of the soil surface 0.4<br />

Wind erosion: terrain deformation 0.4<br />

Desertification 0.2<br />

Table 11.3 Types and extent of soil degradation in Ukraine<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

352<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Figure 11.3 Some types and extent of soil degradation in Ukraine. Source: Medvedev, 2012.<br />

11.5.3 | Case study: Uzbekistan<br />

Uzbekistan is one of the flattest countries of Central Asia. About 80 percent of the national territory<br />

consists of plains, with mountains located in the extreme east of the republic. The climate of Uzbekistan is<br />

‘continental dry’, with significant daily and seasonal fluctuations in air temperature. The summer is long and<br />

hot, the autumn is relatively wet, and the weather in winter is variable. The arid climate favors desertification<br />

and maintains relict accumulations of soluble salts in soils and sediments.<br />

The entire area of the country is 44.9 million ha, and agricultural lands constitute 46.1 percent of the national<br />

territory. The distribution of soils in Uzbekistan reflects a complex system of pedo-geographical regularities<br />

(Figure 11.4). The westernmost part of the republic is occupied by a desert zone that can be subdivided into<br />

a sub-boreal desert (Central Kazakhstan) and a subtropical desert (Turan) desert. The boundary between<br />

the two types of desert corresponds to the northern limit of possible cotton cultivation. In the lower belt of<br />

the piedmont subtropical semi-desert there occur mainly Calcisols which are replaced as elevation increases<br />

by mountainous Cambisols under steppe and forest vegetation. Anthropogenic factors strongly modify the<br />

morphology and pedogenesis of the soils. Irrigated soils are mainly transformed into Anthrosols - some of<br />

the soils in the Amu Darya delta have been cultivated and irrigated for more than three thousandyears. The<br />

country is vulnerable to negative environmental impacts due to its natural climatic conditions. Irrigated<br />

agriculture is localized in the plain and piedmont parts of the republic and is characterized by varying levels of<br />

technology and intensity and by the varying quality of the land.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

353<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


The natural drivers of land degradation and desertification are the following:<br />

• Climatic characteristics, such as aridity, continentality, wind action etc., which cause such phenomena<br />

as drought, hot winds, deflation, and atmospheric transportation of sand, salts and dust;<br />

• Topography, with slopes favouring the development of water erosion and landslides, and flat areas<br />

with depressions creating conditions for waterlogging and salt accumulation. Topography also favours<br />

the formation of specific intensive winds which play an important role in wind erosion;<br />

• Parent material, whose peculiarities are reflected in the soil profile (texture, gypsum and salts content)<br />

and which also determine the susceptibility of soils to wind erosion, karst phenomena, and the soil<br />

buffering capacity; and<br />

• Extreme natural phenomena, such as forest and grassland fires, floods etc. which affect the<br />

development of soils.<br />

Anthropogenic factors affect land resources and trigger degradation processes in the following ways:<br />

• Irrigation without a proper drainage system and inappropriate regulation of the collector-drainage<br />

water lead to salinization and waterlogging;<br />

• Inappropriate use of pastures leads to overgrazing, formation of exposed soil surface and destruction<br />

of the soil structure and, as a result, to the development of deflation under the effect of wind and high<br />

temperature; and<br />

• Forestry strategy allows excessive logging which causes soil erosion on the slopes in mountainous<br />

areas, soil deflation and the expansion of sands on the fertile lands on the plains (Arabov, 2014).<br />

Other economic activities such as industry, municipal and domestic wastes, transport emissions, and<br />

unreclaimed mining spoil also contribute to land degradation. The natural processes of land degradation<br />

and desertification are slow; their effect becomes evident only after decades or centuries. However, human<br />

activities accelerate these natural processes, and the results of anthropogenic degradation processes appear<br />

in a short period of time.<br />

Box 1 | The catastrophe of the Aral Sea<br />

An illustrative example of the menacing scale of ecological and socioeconomic disasters caused by<br />

inappropriate use of natural resources is the catastrophe of the Aral Sea. Its volume has been reduced more<br />

than 13 times, and its area by more than seven times. The primary cause being the diversion of inflowing<br />

rivers for irrigation projects. The shoreline has moved hundreds of kilometers. Salt concentrations have<br />

reached 120 g per liter in the western part and 280 g per liter in the eastern part of the sea (Arabov, 2014).<br />

The sea has split and is now on the verge of extinction: only two small components separated by a dam are<br />

left, the deeper western part, and the ‘Small Aral’ in Kazakhstan, Most of the shore is surrounded by a rind<br />

of salt cover over marshy clays and sands.<br />

The processes of environmental change in the region have combined with global climatic changes and<br />

resulted in the intensification of seasonal droughts. The Aral catastrophe has aggravated the continentality<br />

of climate, increasing dryness and temperature in summer and prolonging cold and severe winters. In the<br />

Aral region, the number of days with the temperature over 40°C doubled, while in the rest of Uzbekistan<br />

it has gone up by about 1.5 times. According to expert evaluation, by 2035-2050 the air temperature in<br />

the region may increase by a further 1.5-3.0°C. On the dried surface of the sea bottom, there are extensive<br />

white salt crusts, covered in places by wind-blown sand. This territory forms a new desert called ‘Aral Kum’<br />

that covers 5 million ha. This Aral Kum desert, which is still growing, has already absorbed 2 million ha<br />

of arable lands and led to degradation of pastures, riparian forest and other vegetation. Satellite images<br />

illustrate the penetration of plumes of salts and dust from the Aral Kum for 8 001 000 km, deep into<br />

densely populated zones.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

354<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


The plains in the basins of Amu Darya and Syr Darya are lowlands with no natural drainage. Due to the dry<br />

climate, the low precipitation and the strong evaporation, these plains act as accumulators of easily soluble<br />

salts in the topsoil. For this reason, the development of irrigated agriculture, starting from the piedmont<br />

areas, requires careful attention to current or historic salt accumulation in the sediments. Farmers also have<br />

to be aware of the danger of secondary salinization. Salt-affected soils currently constitute more than 46<br />

percent of the total irrigated area in Uzbekistan, including moderately saline soils (25 percent of the total<br />

area), and strongly saline soils (over 6 percent). The worst affected areas are the regions of Karakalpakstan,<br />

Bukhara, Khorezm, Dzhizak, Syrdarya, Andijan, Kashkadarya, Navoi, Samarkand, Surkhandarya. Some<br />

districts in Tashkent and Fergana regions are also affected. In the Samarkand region, the prevailing type of<br />

salinity is magnesium-carbonate salts accumulation. Salinization of some newly irrigated lands is followed<br />

by the formation of gypsum-enriched soils that are difficult to reclaim. Gypsum layers and horizons impede<br />

water infiltration and decrease the efficiency of leaching doses designed to wash salts from the soil profile. The<br />

total area of gypsum-containing soils is about 350 000 ha.<br />

Figure 11.4 <strong>Soil</strong> map and soil degradation extent in Uzbekistan. Source: Arabov, 2010.<br />

Across Uzbekistan, all types of erosion can be found: surface runoff and irrigation erosion, destructive<br />

mudflows, wind erosion, and direct negative effects of wind on plants. Wind erosion and negative wind effect<br />

on plants affect 21.4 million ha or 80 percent of all agricultural lands (Figure 11.5). Of the 3.7 million ha of irrigated<br />

lands, three quarters – 2.8 million ha – are eroded to various extents. Agricultural lands also suffer from water<br />

and irrigation erosion. Moderately and strongly eroded soils constitute 12 percent of the agricultural land pool<br />

and about 5 percent of the irrigated land pool (Kurbanov, 2001).<br />

The major part of the country is occupied by pastures that cover an area of 20.6 million ha and serve as<br />

the main source of fodder for livestock (Arabov, 2014). Rational use and protection of the soils of pastures<br />

are issues in natural resources conservation and use. The state of pastures is currently endangered. During<br />

the last 70-80years, the soils of pastures suffered a drastic decrease in humus and nutrient content and they<br />

have been affected by salinization and by water and wind erosion. Other negative processes include soil<br />

compaction, alkalinization, and decline in biological activity and resulting loss of soil<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

355<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Thus, the key challenges in soil degradation in Uzbekistan are: (i) secondary salinization of irrigated lands; (ii)<br />

waterlogging of irrigated agricultural lands; (iii) depletion of soils, including the loss of humus and nutrients;<br />

(iv) compaction; (v) surface runoff and irrigation erosion in mountainous and piedmont areas; (vi) deflation<br />

and pasture degradation in desert regions where transhumance is practiced; (vii) deforestation and loss of<br />

biological diversity; (viii) soil contamination with agrochemicals and industrial waste; (ix) desertification in<br />

the regions bordering the bottom of the dried-up Aral Sea; (x) inappropriate methods of land management; (xi)<br />

poor crop management (lacking or wrong crop rotation, in places insufficient or excessive use of fertilizers);<br />

(xii) insufficient irrigation; and (xiii) breakdown of the rules governing sustainable management of pastures<br />

(Gafurova et al., 2012).<br />

Clearly the protection of land and soils and their sustainable economic use are huge challenges for<br />

Uzbekistan. Article 55 of the Constitution reads: “The earth, minerals, water, flora and fauna, and other<br />

natural resources are national wealth, requiring their rational use and protection of the State”. In order to<br />

provide comprehensive rehabilitation, conservation, protection and improvement of soils and their fertility,<br />

and to improve overall environmental conditions, the following steps are required:<br />

• develop agricultural techniques aimed at restoring and enhancing soil fertility, including approaches<br />

to land reclamation and the promotion of farming practices which improve the physical, chemical and<br />

ecological status of the soil<br />

• develop rapid methods of large scale soil mapping and automate the process of compiling maps and<br />

soil assessments, using remote sensing and GIS technologies<br />

• develop techniques for preventing the processes of surface, gully and wind erosion, for predicting soil<br />

erodibility, and for recovering and improving the fertility of eroded soils<br />

• develop approaches to stopping processes of soil salinization and introduce more effective and<br />

innovative ways of desalinization and reclamation of saline soils<br />

• conduct targeted research to establish the levels and pathways of soil contamination by various<br />

toxicants, including fluorine, heavy metals, pesticides and others, and develop measures to prevent<br />

soil pollution by these substances<br />

• develop integrated science-based recommendations for the assessment of soil fertility of both arable<br />

lands and pastures to promote sustainable economic land use in the republic<br />

11.6 | Conclusion<br />

The inherent complexity and spatial variability of soil makes the evaluation of the impact of any change<br />

difficult. Transformations of features such as texture and mineralogical composition will only occur over<br />

geological time spans while properties such as pH, organic matter content or microbial activity will show<br />

a more rapid reaction. In addition, the response of a particular soil type may be both positive and negative<br />

depending on the function in question. For example, rising temperatures and precipitation may support<br />

increased agricultural productivity on soils previously deemed marginal, but such a transformation can lead to<br />

a deterioration of soil biological diversity and an increased risk of erosion. Quantitative assessments of future<br />

trends in soil characteristics and properties are limited. As a consequence, this chapter provides an outlook<br />

only for a selected number of issues. Considerably more effort is required to model changes in the state of soil<br />

conditions in relation to drivers such as changes in land use and climate.<br />

Based on the above finding, an assessment is made of the status and trend of the ten soil threats in order<br />

of importance for the region. At the same time an indication is given of the reliability of these estimates<br />

(Table 11.4).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

356<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Threat to<br />

soil function<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> sealing<br />

and land take<br />

Salinization<br />

and sodification<br />

Contamination<br />

Organic<br />

carbon change<br />

Nutrient<br />

imbalance<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

Loss of soil<br />

biodiversity<br />

Summary<br />

In densely populated<br />

Western Europe soil<br />

sealing is one of the most<br />

threatening phenomena.<br />

Salinization is a<br />

widespread threat in<br />

Central Asia, and it is<br />

challenging in some areas<br />

in Spain, Hungary, Turkey,<br />

and Russia.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> contamination is a<br />

widespread problem in<br />

Europe. The most frequent<br />

contaminants are heavy<br />

metals and mineral oil.<br />

The situation is improving<br />

in most regions.<br />

The loss of organic<br />

carbon is evident in most<br />

agricultural soils. Peatland<br />

drainage in northern<br />

countries also leads to<br />

rapid organic carbon loss.<br />

In Russia, extensive areas<br />

of agricultural lands were<br />

abandoned that resulted<br />

in quick organic mater<br />

accumulation; however,<br />

some of these areas<br />

are now again used for<br />

agriculture.<br />

In the western part of the<br />

region the loss of nutrients<br />

is compensated by<br />

application of high doses<br />

of fertilizers. In the eastern<br />

part the use of fertilizers<br />

is insufficient, and in most<br />

soils nutrient mining<br />

results in intensive mineral<br />

weathering.<br />

Water erosion is active<br />

in all the cultivated<br />

mountainous and rolling<br />

areas; the worst situation<br />

is observed in Turkey,<br />

Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.<br />

Due to the attention<br />

paid to this threat it is<br />

controlled in most areas,<br />

especially in the EU.<br />

Loss of biodiversity<br />

is expected in the<br />

most urbanized and<br />

contaminated areas of the<br />

region. However, there<br />

are almost no qualitative<br />

estimations of the<br />

biodiversity loss in soils.<br />

Condition and Trend<br />

Confidence<br />

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good In condition In trend<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

357<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


<strong>Soil</strong><br />

acidification<br />

Waterlogging<br />

Compaction<br />

Acidification due to acid<br />

rain was a challenge in<br />

Northern and Western<br />

Europe. The situation is<br />

now improving, though<br />

several decades will be<br />

needed for complete soil<br />

recovery.<br />

Waterlogging is mostly<br />

associated with<br />

irrigation in Central Asian<br />

countries. Most cultivated<br />

irrigated soils there<br />

are waterlogged. This<br />

phenomena in Central Asia<br />

is commonly associated<br />

with salinization.<br />

The use of heavy<br />

machinery and<br />

overgrazing are<br />

threatening in almost all<br />

the agricultural areas.<br />

Table 11.4 Summary of soil threats status, trends and uncertainties in Europe and Eurasia<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

358<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


References<br />

Acosta, J.A., Faz, A., Jansen, B., Kalbitz, K. & Martínez-Martínez, S. 2011. Assessment of salinity status in<br />

intensively cultivated soils under semiarid climate, Murcia, SE Spain. Journal of Arid Environments, 75(11): 1056-<br />

1066.<br />

Afonin, A.N., Greene, S.L., Dzyubenko, N.I. & Frolov, A.N. (eds.) 2008. Interactive Agricultural ecological<br />

atlas of Russia and neighboring countries. Economic Plants and their Diseases, Pests and Weeds. AgroAtlas.<br />

AGES. 2011. Bodenschutz durch umweltgerechte Landwirtschaft. Wien<br />

Arabov, S.A. (ed.) 2010. Atlas of soil resources of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, Goskomzemgeodezkadastr<br />

of the Republic of Uzbekistan, State Scientific Production Enterprise Kartografiya. [in Russian]<br />

Arabov, S.A. (ed.) 2014. National report on the state of land resources of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent,<br />

Goskomzemgeodezkadastr of the Republic of Uzbekistan, State Scientific Production Enterprise Kartografiya.<br />

[in Russian]<br />

Balyuk S.A. & Medvedev, V.V. (eds). 2012. Strategy of balanced use, reproduction and management of soil<br />

resources of Ukraine. Kiev, Agrarian science. 240 pp. [in Ukranian]<br />

BMLFUW. 2008. (Bau)Land in Sicht (translation: Land for Building in Sight – Good reasons to recycle industrial and<br />

commercial brownfields). Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management.<br />

Borovskii, V.M. 1982. Formation of saline soils and haologeochemical regions of Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata,<br />

Nauka publ. 256 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Brito, L.F., La Scala Jr, N., Merques Jr, J. & Pereira, G.T. 2005. Temporal variability of CO 2<br />

soil emissions<br />

and its relation with soil temperature in different positions of the landscape passing to areas farmed with<br />

sugarcane. In Simpósio sobre Plantio direto e Meio ambiente; Seqüestro de carbono e qualidade da agua, pp. 210-212.<br />

Anais. Foz do Iguaçu, 18-20 de Maio 2005. [in Portuguese]<br />

Bulygin, S.J., Breus, N.M. & Seminozenko, 1998. To a technique of definition of a degree of soil erodity on<br />

slopes. Pochvovedenie J., 6: 714-718. [in Russain]<br />

CACILM. 2006. CACILM Multicountry Partnership Framework Project Document. Central Asian Countries<br />

Initiative for Land Management, Asian Development Bank. 70 pp.<br />

Calanca, P., Roesch, A., Jasper, K. & Wild, M. 2006. Global warming and the summertime evapotranspiration<br />

regime of the Alpine region. Climatic Change, 79: 65–78.<br />

Camci Çetin, S., Karaca, A., Haktanir, K. & Yildiz, H. 2007. Global Attention to Turkey Due to Desertification.<br />

Environ Monit Assess, 128: 489–493.<br />

de Paz, J.M., Visconti, F., Zapata, R. & Sanchez, J. 2004. Integration of two simple models in a geographical<br />

information system to evaluate salinization risk in irrigated land of the Valencian Community, Spain. <strong>Soil</strong> Use<br />

and Management, 20: 333-342.<br />

Devlin, G. & Talbot, B. 2014. Deriving cooperative biomass resource transport supply strategies in meeting<br />

co-firing energy regulations: A case for peat and wood fibre in Ireland. Applied Energy, 113: 1700-1709.<br />

EC DG Environment & JRC. 2012. The State of <strong>Soil</strong> in Europe - A contribution of the JRC to the European<br />

Environment Agency’s Environment State and Outlook Report – SOER 2010. No. EUR 25186 EN.<br />

EC. 2002. Implementation of Council Directive 91/676EEC concerning the protection of waters against the<br />

pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Synthesis from year 2000. European Commission,<br />

Brussels.<br />

EC. 2011. Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27, by G. Prokop, H.<br />

Jobstmann & A. Schönbauer. Final report of a study contract for the European Commission, DG Environment.<br />

Brussels, European Communities.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

359<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


EEA. 1995. In D. Stanners & P. Boureau, eds. Europe’s Environment: The Dobris Assessment. Office for Official<br />

Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg<br />

EEA. 2005a Agriculture and environment in EU – 15 – The IRENA indicator report. EEA report no 6/2005.<br />

European Environment Agency.<br />

EEA. 2011. European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. (Also available at<br />

pgAbout.aspx )<br />

http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/<br />

EEA. 2009. Degree of soil sealing 100 m — EEA Fast Track Service Precursor on Land Monitoring. ETC/LUSI. European<br />

Environment Agency.<br />

EEA. 2010b. The European environment — state and outlook 2010: air pollution. Copenhagen, European<br />

Environment Agency.<br />

EEA. 2010c. Exposure of ecosystems to acidification, eutrophication and ozone (CSI 005). European Environment<br />

Agency.<br />

EEA. 2010d. The European environment — state and outlook 2010: land use. Copenhagen, European Environment<br />

Agency.<br />

EEA. 2014. Progress in Management of Contaminated Sites. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency.<br />

EEA. 2010a. The European Environment State and Outlook 2010: Freshwater Quality. Denmark, Copenhagen.<br />

Fischer, G., Van Velthuyzen, H.T., Shah, M.M. & Nachtergaele, F.O. 2002. Global agro-ecological<br />

assessment for agriculture in the 21 st century: methodology and results. IIASA Research Report RR-02-002.<br />

Laxenburg.<br />

FAO. 2015. FAOSTAT. Rome, FAO. (Also available at http://faostat 3.fao.org/home/E)<br />

Follain, S., Schvartz, C., Denoroy, P., Villette, C., Arrouays, D., Walter, C., Lemercier, B. & Saby, N.P.A.<br />

2009. From quantitative to agronomic assessment of soil available phosphorus content of French arable<br />

topsoils. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29: 371-380.<br />

Gafurova, L., Abdrakhmanov, T., Zhabborov, Z. & Saidova, M. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation. Tashkent. pp. 18-204.<br />

[In Uzbek]<br />

García-Ruiz, J.M., López-Moreno, J.I., Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Lasanta-Martínez, T. & Baguería, S. 2011.<br />

Mediterranean water resources in a global change scenario. Earth-Science Reviews, 105(3-4): 121-139.<br />

GDRS. 1987. General Management Planning of Turkey, <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation Main Plan. General Directorate of Rural<br />

Services. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Villages. Ankara.<br />

Gentile, A.R., Barceló-Cordón, S. & Van Liedekerke, M. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> Country Analyses – Austria. Luxembourg,<br />

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 56 pp.<br />

Grekov, Datsko, L.V., Zhilkin, V.A., Maistrenko, M.I. & Datsko, M.O. 2011. Methodical instructions for soil<br />

protection. Kyiv, The State Center of <strong>Soil</strong> Fertility Protection. 108 pp. [in Ukranian]<br />

Grizzetti, B., Bouraoui, F. & Aloe, A. 2007. Spatialised European Nutrient Balance. Institute for Environment<br />

and Sustainability. EUR 22692 EN<br />

Hernández Bastida, J.A., Vela de Oro, N. & Ortiz Silla, R. 2004. Electrolytic Conductivity of Semiarid <strong>Soil</strong>s<br />

(Southeastern Spain) in Relation to Ion Composition. Arid Land Research and Management, 18(3): 265-281.<br />

Huber, S.,Prokop, G., Arrouays, D., Banko, G., Bispo, A., Jones, R.J.A., Kibblewhite, M.G., Lexer, W.,<br />

Möller, A., Rickson, R.J.;,Shishkov, T., Stephens, M., Toth, G., Van den Akker, J.J.H., Varallyay, G., Verheijen,<br />

F.G.A. & Jones, A.R. (eds.) 2008. Environmental Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> for Monitoring: Volume I Indicators and<br />

Criteria. EUR 23490 EN/1. Office for the Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 339<br />

pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

360<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Inisheva, L.I. (ed.). 2005. Concept of protection and rational use of peatlands of Russia. Tomsk, Central Peat<br />

Research Institute Publ. 99 pp. [In Russian]<br />

Ismayilov, A. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> of Azerbaijan. In Y. Yigini, P. Panagos & L. Montanarella, eds. <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

of Mediterranean and Caucasus Countries, pp. 16-36. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European<br />

Communities.<br />

Jones, J.A. & Montanarella, L. (eds). 2003. Land Degradation. European <strong>Soil</strong>s Bureau Research Report #<br />

10. EUR 20559 EN. 324pp.<br />

Jones, R.J.A., Hiederer, B., Rusco, F. & Montanarella, L. 2005. Estimating organic carbon in the soils of<br />

Europe for policy support. European Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science 56: 655 -671.<br />

Jones, A., Panagos, P., Barcelo, S., Bouraoui, F., Bosco, C., Dewitte, O., Gardi, C., Erhard, M., Hervás, J.,<br />

Hiederer, R., Jeffery, S., Lükewille, A., Marmo, L., Montanarella, L., Olazábal, C., Petersen, J.-E., Penizek,<br />

V., Strassburger, T., Tóth, G., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Van Liedekerke, M., Verheijen, F., Viestova, E. & Yigini,<br />

Y. 2011. The State of <strong>Soil</strong> in Europe. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 71 pp.<br />

Kibblewhite, M. Jones, R.J.A., Baritz, R. Huber, S., Arrouays, D., Michéli, E. & Dufour, M.J.D. 2005.<br />

Environmental Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> for Monitoring. European Commission Desertification meeting. Brussels,<br />

12-13 Oct 2005.<br />

Kovats, R.S., Valentini, R., Bouwer, L.M., Georgopoulou, E., Jacob, D., Martin, E., Rounsevell, M. &<br />

Soussana, J.-F. 2014. Europe. In V.R. Barros, C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M.<br />

Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea<br />

& L.L. White, eds. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects, pp. 1267-<br />

1326. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on<br />

Climate Change. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press & USA, New York, NY.<br />

Kurbanov, E.K. (ed.). 2001. Atlas: Land <strong>Resources</strong> of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent,<br />

Goskomzemgeodezkadastr of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Publ. Patent-press. [In Russian]<br />

Kuziev, R.K. & Sektimenko, V.E. 2009. The <strong>Soil</strong>s of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, Extremum Press. 351 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Laktionova, T.M., Medvedev, V.V., Savchenko, K.V., Bihun, Shejko, S.M. & Nakisko, S.G. 2010. Structure<br />

and the order of data base using <strong>Soil</strong>s Properties of Ukraine. (Instruction). Kharkiv, Apostrophe. 96 pp. [in Ukranian]<br />

Leah, T. 2012. Land resources management and soil degradation factors in the Republic of Moldova. In The<br />

3 rd International Symposium, Agrarian Economy and Rural Development - realities and perspectives for Romania, 11-13<br />

October 2012, pp. 194-200. Romania, Bucharest.<br />

Lemercier, B., Gaudin, L., Walter, C., Aurousseau, P., Arrouays, D., Schvartz, C., Saby, N.P.A., Follain,<br />

S. & Abrassart, J. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> phosphorus monitoring at the regional level by means of a soil test database. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Use and Management, 24: 131-138.<br />

Medvedev, V.V. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> monitoring of the Ukraine. The concept. Results. Tasks. (2-nd reconsidered and added<br />

edition). Kharkiv, The City printing house. 536 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Ministry of Natural <strong>Resources</strong>. 2006. State Report On the State and Protection of Environment in Russian<br />

Federation in 2005. Land <strong>Resources</strong> of Rsuuian Federation for the 1 st of January 2006. Moscow. 45 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Morvan, X.P.P., Saby, N.P.A., Arrouays, D., Le Bas, C., Jones, R.J.A., Verheijen, F.G.A., Bellamy, P.H.,<br />

Stephens, M. & Kibblewhite, M.G. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> monitoring in Europe: a review of existing systems and<br />

requirements for harmonisation. Sci. Tot. Env., 391: 1-12.<br />

Novikova, A.V. 2009. The study of saline and solonetz soils: their genesis, melioration, and ecology. Kharkiv,<br />

Dkukarnya. 720 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Oldeman, L.R. 1998. <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation: A Threat to Food Security? Report 98/01. The Netherlands, Wageningen,<br />

International <strong>Soil</strong> Reference and Information Centre. 14 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

361<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C.,<br />

D’Amico, J.A., Itoua, I., Strand, H.E., Morrison, J.C., Loucks, C.J., Allnutt, T.F., Ricketts, T.H., Kura, Y.,<br />

Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, W.W., Hedao, P. & Kassem, K.R. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new<br />

map of life on Earth. Bioscience, 51(11): 933-938.<br />

Pankova, E.I. 1992. Genesis of salinization in the soils of deserts. Moscow, Dokuchaev <strong>Soil</strong> Science Institute<br />

Publ. 136 pp. (In Russian)<br />

Pérez-Sirvent, C., Martínez-Sánchez, M.J. & Sánchez, J.V. 2003. The role of low-quality irrigation water in<br />

the desertification of semi-arid zones in Murcia, SE Spain. Geoderma, 113: 109-125.<br />

Schils, R., Kuikman, P., Liski, J., Van Oijen, M., Smith, P., Webb, J., Alm, J., Somogyi, Z., Van den Akker,<br />

J., Billett, M., Emmett, B., Evans, C., Lindner, M., Palosuo, T., Bellamy, P., Jandl, R. & Hiederer, R. 2008.<br />

Review of existing information on the interrelations between soil and climate change (Clim<strong>Soil</strong>). Final report.<br />

Brussels, European Commission<br />

Senol, S. & Bayramin, I. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> of Turkey. In Y. Yigini, P. Panagos & L. Montanarella, eds.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> of Mediterranean and Caucasus Countries, pp. 225-237. Luxembourg, Office for Official<br />

Publications of the European Communities.<br />

Shishov, L.L. & Pankova, E.I. (eds.) 2006. Salt-affected <strong>Soil</strong>s of Russia. Moscow, Publ. Center Akademkniga.<br />

857 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Shoba, S.A., Alyabina, I.O., Kolesnikova, V.M., Molchanov, E.N., Rojkov, V.A., Stolbovoi, V.S.,<br />

Urusevskaya, I.S., Sheremet, B.V. & Konyushkov D.E. 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> of Russia. <strong>Soil</strong>-Geographic Database.<br />

Moscow, GEOS. [in Russian]<br />

State Committee of Russian Federation on Land <strong>Resources</strong> and Land Planning. 2000. Report 1999.<br />

Pskov. 68 pp. (In Russian)<br />

Strauss, P. & Klaghofer, E. 2006. Status of soil erosion in Austria. In J. Boardman & J. Poesen, eds. <strong>Soil</strong> Erosion<br />

in Europe, pp. 205–212. London & New York, John Wiley.<br />

The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Conservation connections. Annual Report 2009. Worldwide Office.<br />

Virginia, USA.<br />

Tóth, G., Adhikari. K., Várallyay, Gy., Tóth, T., Bódis, K. & Stolbovoy, V. 2008. Updated Map of Salt<br />

Affected <strong>Soil</strong>s in the European Union. In G. Tóth, L. Montanarella, & E. Rusco, eds. 2008. Threats to <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Quality in Europe EUR 23438 EN, pp. 65-77. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European<br />

Communities. 151 pp.<br />

Tóth, T. & Szendrei, G. 2006. Types and distribution of salt affected soils in Hungary and the characterisation<br />

of the processes of salt accumulation. In Topographia Mineralogica Hungariae, pp. 7-20. Budapest, Akadémiai<br />

Kiadó. 103 pp. (In Hungarian)<br />

Umlauf, G., Bidoglio, G., Christoph, E., Kampheus, J., Krűger, F. Landmann, D., Schulz, A.J., Schwartz,<br />

R., Severin, K., Stachel, B. & Dorit, S. 2005. The situation of PCDD/F’s and Dioxine-like PCB’s after the flooding<br />

of river Elbe and Mulde in 2002. Acta Hydrochim. Hydrobiol, 33(5): 543 – 554.<br />

Umweltbundesamt. 2004. The environmental situation in Austria. 7th Report on the State of the<br />

Environment inn Austria, report of the Federal Minister of Environment to the National Assembly of the<br />

Austrian Parliament. Federal environment agency.<br />

Umweltbundesamt. 2006. Website on spatial planning - land consumption. Federal environment agency.<br />

Umweltbundesamt. 2007a. 8th Report on the State of the Environment in Austria. Vienna.<br />

Umweltbundesamt. 2007b. Website on brownfields in Austria.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

362<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


van Lynden, G.W.J. 1997. Guidelines for the Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation in Central and Eastern Europe. SOVEUR<br />

Project. Revised edition. The Netherlands, Wageningen, ISRIC. 22 pp.<br />

Wong, W.K., B. Stein, E. Torill, Ingjerd H. & Hege, H. 2011. Climate change effects on spatiotemporal<br />

patterns of hydroclimatological summer droughts in Norway. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 12(6): 1205-1220.<br />

WWF. 2014. Terrestrial Ecoregions. World Wildlife Fund. (Also available at http://www.worldwildlife.org/biomecategories/terrestrial-ecoregions)<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

363<br />

in Europe and Eurasia


12 | Regional assessment<br />

of soil changes in Latin America<br />

and the Caribbean<br />

Regional Coordinator: Maria de Lourdes Mendonça-Santos (ITPS/Brazil)<br />

Regional Lead Author: Juan Comerma (Venezuela)<br />

Contributing Authors: Julio Alegre (ITPS/Peru), Ildefonso Pla Sentis (Spain), Carlos Cruz Gaistardo (Mexico),<br />

Rodrigo Vargas (Mexico), Diego Tassinari (Brazil), Moacir de Souza Dias Junior (Brazil), Sebastián Santayana<br />

Vela (Peru), Maria Laura Corso (Argentina), Vanina Pietragalla (Argentina), María Nery Urquiza Rodríguez<br />

(Cuba), Candelario Alemán García (Cuba), Segundo Sacramento Urquiaga Caballero (Peru/Brazil), Maria de<br />

Lourdes Mendonça-Santos (ITPS/Brazil), Miguel Taboada (ITPS/Argentina), Olegario Muniz (Cuba), Carlos<br />

Henriquez (ITPS/Costa Rica) and David Espinosa (ITPS/Mexico).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

364<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


12.1 | Introduction<br />

This chapter discusses the status of soil resources in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). The LAC<br />

region, as defined by FAO, includes the following countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados,<br />

Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada,<br />

Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and<br />

Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela. The emphasis will<br />

be on human-induced ‘anthropogenic’ changes, and not on natural causes, although it is not always easy to<br />

separate them.<br />

The LAC region extends from Mexico at latitude 32 degrees north to Tierra del Fuego at 55 degrees south.<br />

It also includes the Caribbean islands. The presence of 12 out of 14 terrestrial biomes (Olson et al., 2001), the<br />

rugged relief in Central America and along the western side of South America, and the large lowlands in central<br />

South America that also include interior wetlands, all combine to make LAC the most bio-diverse region in the<br />

world. In fact, eight of the 17 mega-diverse countries of the world are located in Latin America: Bolivia, Brazil,<br />

Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela.<br />

In terms of natural resources, Latin America is one of the richest regions of the world. With only 8 percent of<br />

the population, it has 23 percent of the world’s potential cropland, 12 percent of the actually cultivated land, 46<br />

percent of the globe’s tropical forest and 31 percent of the planet’s fresh water (Garret, 1997). The region could<br />

provide a further 800 million ha of land for agriculture (Laegreid, Bockman and Kaarstad, 1999). However,<br />

most of these potential areas are under tropical rainforest and clearing would cause severe environmental<br />

changes with dramatic effects on many ecosystem functions. Agricultural conversion of natural ecosystems<br />

(grass-shrub-savannas and forest) as a percentage in LAC is of the order of 30 percent, representing slightly<br />

over 600 million ha of agro ecosystems, a figure similar to Africa but smaller than Europe and much smaller<br />

than Asia. Compared to other regions of the world, these converted agro-ecosystems had a medium to low<br />

intensity use of fertilizers and irrigation for much of the 20th century (UNDP, 2000). However, use of fertilizer<br />

and irrigation increased dramatically in recent decades as agriculture expanded onto the temperate and<br />

subtropical plains (Grau and Aide, 2008; Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010).<br />

Another important characteristic of this region is that agriculture started in the mountains, mainly because<br />

of the presence of serious diseases in the lowlands, notably malaria. Consequently, the sloping lands of the<br />

Andes and the Central America Mountains have been cultivated the longest, starting with the Incas and Mayas.<br />

Mountainous areas in LAC still have high populations that practice both intensive agriculture like horticulture<br />

and more extensive land uses like pasture and coffee growing. Exploitation of the flatter lowlands such as the<br />

Pampas and Cerrados, with tropical, subtropical and temperate climates, started only more recently. This is<br />

where most of the present intensive farming takes place, including the use of fertilizers and machinery in the<br />

production of cereals, legumes and other crops (Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010).<br />

The main soil threats are related to natural features of physiography and to the type of vegetation cover.<br />

Anthropic and cultural features also play an important role, especially inappropriate agricultural practices<br />

which are a consequence of inequitable and insecure land tenure, insufficient research and lack of extension<br />

services.<br />

Water erosion and landslides are prominent threats in the sloping lands of the mountains, especially when<br />

the slopes have been burned and overgrazed. Loss of soil carbon mostly occurs after deforestation and change<br />

of land use to permanent grassland. In semiarid and arid areas where irrigation is applied, salinity and sodicity<br />

are important threats. In areas with more intense land use and the employment of heavy farm machinery,<br />

compaction occurs. Also in these areas, the use of amendments, fertilizers and other agrochemicals bring the<br />

threats of nutrient imbalance, acidification, contamination and loss of biodiversity. In addition to induced<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

365<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


flooding on rice fields, waterlogging and flooding are on the rise in the region as a consequence of the<br />

combination of higher rainfall promoted by the phenomenon of ENSO (the El Niño Southern Oscillation), and<br />

by land use changes which decrease ground cover by perennial vegetation. Acidification also occurs, mostly in<br />

deltas where the drainage of marine clays produces acid sulphate soils.<br />

Overall, the most important ecosystems services affected in LAC are: (1) climate regulation, through the<br />

carbon and nitrogen cycles, especially due to the immense deforestation rate up to 2004 of the humid tropical<br />

forests, mostly in the Amazon Basin; (2) water regulation, through changes in quantity and quality of water<br />

production in the mountains, which is also due to deforestation of sloping lands accompanied by strong water<br />

erosion and landslides; and (3) loss of biodiversity, another ecosystem service threatened by deforestation and<br />

change in land use/land cover (Viglizzo and Frank, 2006; Gardi et al., 2014).<br />

12.2 | Biomes, ecoregions and general soil threats in the region.<br />

In order to give information on soil, land use and ecosystem services affected by soil threats, this chapter<br />

uses the 'Biomes’ (environmental zones with similar climate, fauna and flora) outlined in the <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas of<br />

Latin America and the Caribbean (Gardi et al., 2014, Figure 12.1). The boundaries of the Biomes correlate with<br />

major soil-landscapes. We will describe and discuss the Biomes in sequence starting from the most extensive.<br />

However, this sequence does not necessarily follow the significance and gravity of soil threats.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

366<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Figure 12.1 Biomes in Latin America and the Caribbean. Source: Olson et al., 2001.<br />

Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest is by far the most extensive Biome in LAC. Essentially it<br />

is a permanent very humid, high temperature forest. The landscape goes from flat plains to rolling slopes. The<br />

soils are dominated by medium to highly weathered Acrisols, Ferralsols and Plinthosols, which are in general<br />

acid and unfertile. This Biome has the greatest biodiversity of plant and animals and also shows little resilience<br />

to human intervention. It spreads from the eastern coasts of Mexico and Central America, through part of the<br />

Caribbean islands, the Pacific Coast of Colombia and the Atlantic coast of Guyana and Venezuela, down to<br />

most of the Amazon basin in Ecuador, Peru and Brazil, and finally to the western and southern coast of Brazil.<br />

Because this Biome has had the largest deforestation rate in LAC (FAO, 2005, 2010) and because this<br />

practice removes a large and continuous addition of organic matter to the soil, the loss of land cover and<br />

soil organic carbon is clearly the most important threat to ecosystem function. Another threat in deforested<br />

areas is water erosion, which occurs when heavy rains fall on bare soil, resulting in major erosion problems<br />

on the widespread gentle and moderate slopes. As most of the nutrients in these soils are contained in the<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

367<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


organic matter of the topsoil, its removal and rapid decomposition affects soil biodiversity, and in the long run<br />

nutrient imbalances may appear. Other ecosystem services affected include: the carbon and nitrogen cycles<br />

and their contribution to climate regulation; water quality and quantity; and landscape stability.<br />

Tropical and Subtropical Grasslands, Savannahs and Shrub lands are the second largest Biome in LAC.<br />

The climate is characterized by alternating wet and dry periods and by high temperatures. The vegetation<br />

consists predominantly of grasses with different densities of trees. In general, the topography is flat to<br />

gently undulating. For the most part, and especially in Brazil (Cerrados), eastern Venezuela and Colombia,<br />

the dominant soils are acid lowfertility Acrisols, Ferralsols and Arenosols, while in the younger surfaces, the<br />

dominant soils are more fertile Luvisols, Phaeozems and Vertisols.<br />

In these areas, the principal crops are annuals such as corn, soybean, sorghum, beans, cassava and cotton,<br />

grasses like Brachiarias, and legumes like Stylosanthes. In recentyears, sugarcane and other biofuel crops have<br />

also been planted (Miyake et al., 2012). Brazil, with the largest area of savannahs in LAC (around 200 million<br />

ha), has 55 million ha of introduced pastures and 22 million ha under annual crops (Sousa, 2011). In general, the<br />

soils in this Biome are low in organic matter, very infertile, and acid throughout. Counteracting the acidity and<br />

infertility of these soil conditions requires the use of amendments including gypsum and limestone, fertilizers<br />

such as rock phosphate, and inoculants. Erosion has been the main threat, but following major research and<br />

extension programmes, conservation tillage is increasing and is having an impact on the problem. Another<br />

threat has been compaction, not only by farm machinery but also by overgrazing. In grasslands where minimal<br />

fertilizer is used, a problem of nutrient imbalance has been reported (Guimarães, 2013). In agricultural land<br />

too, there is a growing imbalance of nutrients, especially in recentyears with the intensification of agriculture,<br />

where fertilizer use has fallen well short of the demand of the crops (Urquiaga et al., 2014). This is a threat<br />

throughout LAC. However, inputs of fertilizer have increased in recent years.<br />

Ecosystem services are affected both positively and negatively in this Biome. The rise in food production is<br />

the main positive effect. However, there are significant negative effects too: the carbon and nitrogen cycles<br />

are affected by the higher rate of organic matter decomposition; there is loss of water quality due to erosion<br />

and sediment movement; and there are biodiversity losses (Viglizzo and Frank, 2006; Viglizzo and Jobbagy,<br />

2010).<br />

Deserts and Xeric Shrublands occupy the third place amongst LAC Biomes in terms of area. They are<br />

characterized by low precipitation, high evaporation and quite windy conditions. The temperatures are<br />

variable: in the tropics, for example in northern Brazil, the coastal area of Peru and the Caribbean coast of<br />

Venezuela and Colombia, temperatures are quite warm; in northern and central Mexico and Chile, by contrast,<br />

a cold period occurs. In all cases, vegetation is dominated by cactuses and thorny shrubs that are very sparse<br />

and resistant to drought. The most typical soils are calcareous or gypsiferous, shallow, saline or sodic and<br />

reflect the very limited amount of leaching. Calcisols, Gypsisols, Arenosols, Regosols and Solonchaks are<br />

common soil groups.<br />

Because of its aridity, this Biome requires irrigation for most forms of agricultural development. Irrigation<br />

requires not only a source of water, but also water of good quality and a good drainage system to leach the<br />

soluble salts common in this Biome. Preventing salinization is difficult but restoring salinized soils is even<br />

harder. The use of waste water from cities may bring additional problems, particularly contamination with<br />

heavy metals. Due to the sparse vegetation coverage and the presence of strong winds, it is common for wind<br />

erosion to increase after human intervention.<br />

The principal ecosystem service that may be affected is the productivity of the soils due to salinization.<br />

Water quality may worsen for the same reason.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

368<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Temperate Grasslands, Savannahs and Shrublands have been widely studied and documented by various<br />

authors (Paruelo, Guerschman and Verón, 2005; Satorre, 2005; Viglizzo and Frank, 2006; Álvarez et al., 2009;<br />

Lavado and Taboada, 2009; Viglizzo and Jobbágy, 2010). This Biome is predominantly located in the Argentinian<br />

Pampas. Its central plains are dominated by grasses on flat to gently sloping lands, with a temperate climate,<br />

and rains ranging from 1 500 mm in the northeast to 400 mm in the southwest. These areas have some of the<br />

most fertile soils of the world, the Phaeozems, although more than 13 million ha with natural saline-sodic soils<br />

(e.g. Solonetzs) also appear in this Biome.<br />

Despite the wide adoption of no-tillage, intensive annual cultivation (largely of soybean) and the lack<br />

of rotation with other crops or pastures have resulted in soil degradation by wind and water erosion,<br />

waterlogging, compaction, sealing/capping, and soil fertility depletion (Satorre, 2005; Lavado and Taboada,<br />

2009; Alvarez et al., 2009; Sainz Rozas et al., 2011; Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010). Clearing of forested lowlands<br />

to produce annual crops (soybean, cotton etc.) has also led to salinization or sodification in areas where the<br />

groundwater table has risen (Paruelo, Guerschman and Verón, 2005; Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010).<br />

Dry Tropical and Subtropical Broadleaf Forest occurs in many different zones in LAC. These zones share<br />

common characteristics: they are all situated below 1 000 m elevation, all experience high temperatures, and<br />

all have at least one dry season when the trees lose their leaves. These forests are more common in hilly and<br />

mountainous landscapes with soils of medium fertility such as Luvisols, and Cambisols. Large populations<br />

live in these areas and deforestation and annual burning are common. These forests occur in western Mexico,<br />

Costa Rica, Cuba, the north of Venezuela and Colombia, the coasts of Ecuador and Peru, and central and the<br />

north east of Brazil.<br />

This Biome is very attractive for agricultural development. The soils are fertile and the climatic conditions<br />

are favourable for human habitation and for the growth of many crops, including corn, beans, potatoes,<br />

sugarcane, fruits and coffee. Large areas of grassland are used for extensive pasturing. Deforestation is the<br />

major threat, and is in practice irreversible as the dry period makes it difficult for natural regrowth to occur.<br />

As the accumulation of organic matter in these soils is medium or low, deforestation also brings the threat<br />

of organic carbon loss, and the increase of soil temperature in bare soils accelerates decomposition. Steeper<br />

slopes are hard to cultivate and here the most common land use after deforestation is extensive pasture. After<br />

a few years, soil compaction develops, particularly along the small terraces where the animals pass. This<br />

compaction also reduces rainfall infiltration and consequently increases water erosion.<br />

Ecosystem services affected are principally the carbon and nitrogen cycles and climate regulation due to the<br />

decrease in organic matter. Water production and quality may also decrease due to compaction by overgrazing<br />

and farm machinery which increases erosion. As erosion reaches high levels in many slopes, landscape stability<br />

can also be affected.<br />

Montane Grasslands and Shrublands are present at high altitudes throughout the Andes, but mostly in<br />

Peru and Bolivia. Locally they are called Punas or Paramos. They occur above 3 000 m or even higher, and are<br />

dominated by grasses and small shrubs. Temperatures during the day may be quite high but frosts can occur at<br />

night. In general these area are quite dry. The topography may be mountainous or large mesas or high plains.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s are generally rich in organic matter, but rather shallow. Predominant groups are Regosols, Leptosols and,<br />

in the drier zones, Solonchaks.<br />

Most of the land remains bare or is used for extensive pastures. Most of the pastures are natural, but some<br />

have been introduced and have adapted to the conditions. In some parts of LAC, especially in northern South<br />

America, some areas are also used for intensive horticultural crops, including potatoes, carrots and quinoa.<br />

In these cases, conservation practices, irrigation and high inputs of organic and inorganic fertilizers are used<br />

throughout the year (Comerma, Larralde and Soriano, 1971). Although there are no data on impacts, it is<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

369<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


suspected that contamination of soils and water from excessive use of fertilizers and other agrochemicals may<br />

be occurring. This can also affect soil biodiversity, which may be very important given the unique vegetation<br />

and fauna of this Biome.<br />

This Biome is of high importance for certain ecosystem services, notably water production. It is located at<br />

the top of many watersheds and is a continuous source of pristine water, in many cases related to the process<br />

of thawing. Many soils in the Biome are rich in organic matter in the topsoil. Careful attention has to be paid<br />

to C and N cycles because of the services provided. The soil gene population, due to its unique nature, should<br />

also be studied and protected.<br />

Tropical and Subtropical Coniferous Forests occur at high and medium altitudes, mostly in Mexico and<br />

south to Nicaragua. Small patches also exist in the Dominican Republic, southern Brazil and along the Chile-<br />

Argentine border. These forests occur mostly in mountainous landscapes and on many different geologic<br />

materials, including volcanic ashes. Most of the soils are Umbrisols, Luvisols, Leptosols and Andosols. The<br />

vegetation is dominated by many types of conifer with a diverse understory.<br />

Deforestation for the establishment of pastures and wood harvesting are major land uses. In many cases<br />

these land uses are accompanied by burning. Deforestation and burning create the threats of reduced organic<br />

carbon and of water erosion. The main ecosystem services affected are water production/ regulation, C and N<br />

cycling, and landscape stability.<br />

Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forest is confined to a temperate permanent forest in southern Chile. The<br />

forest occurs mainly in valleys and on the slopes of high mountains. The climate is very humid, cold and with<br />

few variations during the year. <strong>Soil</strong>s are shallow and mostly Alisols, Andosols, Cambisols, and Histosols.<br />

Because of the low temperatures and the rough relief, the land is largely a protected area, and only a few<br />

valleys are used for pasture. As human intervention is very low, threats and impacts for ecosystem services are<br />

very limited.<br />

Flooded Grasslands and Savannahs in LAC occur in tropical alluvial plains, mostly in Brazil, Bolivia and<br />

Paraguay. The Pantanal, which stretches across all three countries, is the world’s largest tropical wetland, and<br />

is a highly productive environment. The area is recognized by UNESCO as a World Natural Heritage Site and<br />

Biosphere Reserve. Other important areas occur in Venezuela and Colombia on flat alluvial plains. They all<br />

have in common the predominance of native pastures adapted to flooding, few trees at higher elevations, and<br />

a seasonal period of flooding alternating with a dry season. The predominant soils are Gleysols, Stagnosols,<br />

Vertisols, Plinthosols and Histosols. The most widespread use of this biome in LAC is as pasture for bovine<br />

and, more recently, bubaline cattle. Its strategic importance in the production system is in the supply of green<br />

pastures for the dry season.<br />

Economic development in the Pantanal region, especially on the plateau of the Rio Taquari Basin,<br />

has intensified the input of sediments to the Pantanal lowlands, causing serious social, economic and<br />

environmental impacts on the region (Galdino, Vieira and Pellegrin, 2006).<br />

The main ecosystem service is the provision of food and fiber, interacting with the service of water<br />

regulation. The ecosystem is unique and rich in flora and fauna. <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity is of prime importance and<br />

should be investigated and protected.<br />

Mediterranean Forest and Shrubs occupy a small strip of Chile near the coast. The Biome has a warm<br />

temperate climate, dry during the warm period and rainy in the winter time. The vegetation, relief and soils<br />

are very heterogeneous, as they represent a transition between tropics and temperate, and between dry and<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

370<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


humid. The most common soil groups are Regosols, Leptosols and Andisols. The degree of human intervention<br />

is so complete that there are few remnants of the original vegetation.<br />

Because of its Mediterranean climate, the natural productivity of the area is very high. This has been utilized<br />

by Chileans to create very important agricultural development areas, especially in the valleys. Irrigation,<br />

tillage and large quantities of fertilizers and other agrochemicals are used to obtain high yields. Deforestation<br />

has resulted in significant erosion threats; high levels of input use have led to contamination; and in the drier<br />

zones salinization is a threat due to the quality of irrigation water.<br />

The ecosystem service positively affected is the provision of food. Negative effects are on water quality and<br />

possibly on human health, and loss of biodiversity related to contamination.<br />

Mangroves are the smallest Biome in LAC in terms of area. They occur along the coastlines of all LAC<br />

countries and are particularly associated with the deltas of important rivers like the Amazon and the Orinoco.<br />

They are located where there is the mixture of fresh and saline water. Mangroves provide many ecological<br />

services and are considered very fragile as disturbances can produce irreversible consequences. <strong>Soil</strong>s are<br />

mostly Histosols, Gleysols and Acid Sulphate soils.<br />

Mangrove areas are mostly protected because they are hard to drain and the soils are poor, with<br />

predominance of reduced or organic soils. In cases where development projects have been implemented, the<br />

main land uses are pasture, rice, or plantation crops such as oil palm or bananas. Especially when mangroves<br />

are underlain by marine sediments, it is very common that after drainage, oxidation of Iron Sulphide (pyrite)<br />

will occur, producing extreme acidification and the formation of acid sulphate soils. This is an extreme case of<br />

the threat of acidification and reclamation is extremely difficult. After drainage, organic carbon is lost and the<br />

land surface subsides.<br />

The ecosystem service principally affected is the reduction of productivity, especially if acid sulphate soils<br />

are formed. The Carbon and Nitrogen cycles and water quality will also be affected. Cultural heritage will also<br />

be affected, as local tribes – for example, the Waraos in the Orinoco Delta – have been living on the natural<br />

products extracted from this ecosystem for more than 4000 years.<br />

12.3. General soil threats in the region<br />

In recent years, the onset of climate changes, notably more intense and concentrated rainfall events and<br />

higher evaporation, has begun to bring change in the pace and intensity of threats such as erosion, flooding<br />

and desertification (IPCC, 2014). At the same time, other threats to soils and ecosystem services have also<br />

increased, including threats to organic carbon, biodiversity, crop production, and water quantity and quality.<br />

12.3.1 | Erosion by water and wind<br />

This threat is considered one of the most important in the region, because it has an impact on very large<br />

populations, particularly those concentrated in the mountainous regions of the Andes, Central America,<br />

Mexico and the Caribbean. Water erosion and landslides occur mainly on steep slopes that have been deforested<br />

or in dry mountain areas which are used as pastures and which have been overgrazed. Water erosion also<br />

occurs on the gentler slopes of the cerrados as well as in parts of the pampas subject to intensive cultivation.<br />

Erosion and landslides remove fertile topsoil, affecting crop productivity, making tillage more difficult, and<br />

producing sediments that affect fields and infrastructure downstream and cause flooding in flat areas. The<br />

threat is considered in more detail in Section 12.4.1.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

371<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


12.3.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

Changes in organic carbon occur mostly if carbon supplied by vegetation decreases, as happens with<br />

deforestation, or if mineralization is increased as happens with ploughing (Sánchez, 1981). LAC contains about<br />

half of the world’s tropical forest, and until recently, it had the highest rate of deforestation, which drastically<br />

reduced organic inputs to soils. The region also has some of the best soils in the world, for example in the<br />

Pampas. These soils are rich in organic matter content and very fertile, but continuous cropping has increased<br />

mineralization and reduced organic carbon. In both cases, soils are becoming less productive, limiting their<br />

ecological services (Lavado and Taboada, 2009; Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010; Gardi et al., 2014). A recent study<br />

(D’Accunto, Semmartin and Ghersa, 2014) found that uncropped agricultural borders are highly effective in the<br />

mitigation of soil organic carbon losses. The details of changes in SOC are outlined in Section 12.4.2.<br />

12.3.3 | Salinization and sodification<br />

Natural or primary salinization and sodification are quite common in the arid and semiarid regions of<br />

LAC, including in Mexico, Cuba, northern South America, Peru, Northeast Brazil and southern Argentine.<br />

Human-induced threats are also present in these regions because irrigation is common and the quality of<br />

the water used and the lack of drainage induce salinization. Even though it may not occupy large areas, salt<br />

accumulation is an important threat because it severely reduces crop productivity. It is very difficult to prevent<br />

and even more difficult to reclaim soils once salinized. It has been estimated (AQUASTAT, 1997) that 18.4 million<br />

ha in LAC are affected by salinization caused by irrigation. The problem also appears in humid climates, where<br />

topsoil in large plains with high and saline groundwater and sodic soils (e.g. Solonetzes) may be salinized by<br />

upward soluble salt rises promoted by land clearing and overgrazing (Taboada, Rubio and Chaneton, 2011,<br />

Bandera, 2013, Di Bella et al., 2015). A country-by-country analysis is provided in Section 12.4.3.<br />

12.3.4 | Nutrient imbalance<br />

The largest proportion of soils in LAC are acid and have naturally low fertility. As a result, amendments and<br />

fertilizers are required for sustainable production. These inputs also serve to boost productivity where areas for<br />

agriculture and animal production are already limited and expansion of production requires intensification. In<br />

recentyears, contrasting cases of nutrient imbalance have emerged as a result of the high levels of N-fertilizers<br />

(ammonia) applied in high-input production systems (Espinosa and Molina, 1999). These N-fertilizers increase<br />

the acid ion sources in the soils, even in very fertile soils. Nutrient impoverishment has been documented in<br />

coffee and sugar cane plantations on Andisols, reducing yields (Bertsch et al., 2002). Nutrient imbalance could<br />

also appear in the highly fertile Pampas region, where farmers have historically applied low amount of fertilizers<br />

(Lavado and Taboada, 2009). The imbalance could be greater were it not for the significant contribution of<br />

biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) in agriculture and livestock production of the region (Urquiaga et al., 2012;<br />

Franzluebbers, Sawchika and Taboada, 2014). The contribution of BNF is particularly important for soybean<br />

in the Pampas and for legume pastures in the Southern Cone (Alves, Boddey and Urquiaga, 2003; Campillo et<br />

al., 2003, 2005).<br />

12.3.5 | Loss of soil biodiversity<br />

In LAC, conservation areas can provide a bank of original soil biodiversity (Alegre, Pashansi and Lavelle, 1996,<br />

White et al., 2005; Urquiaga et al., 2014). One study (Ferraro and Ghersa, 2007) found that the community<br />

of microarthopods was highly sensitive to crop management and resulting soil conditions. Microbiological<br />

indices and enzymatic activity are useful new indicators and have been used in different studies in the region<br />

(Balotta et al., 2004; Sicardi, Garcìa-Préchac and Frioni, 2004; Nogueira et al., 2006; Green et al., 2007;<br />

Franchini et al., 2007; de Moraes Sa and Lal, 2009; Romaniuk et al., 2012; Henríquez et al., 2014).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

372<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


12.3.6 | Compaction<br />

In LAC there are two main causes of compaction: livestock production and machinery transit. Overgrazing<br />

by cattle and sheep causes degradation of pastures and increased erosion as found in mountainous regions,<br />

the Cerrado, coffee plantations and the arid Patagonia (Bertiller, Ares and Bisigato, 2002; Henríquez et al.,<br />

2011; Taboada, Rubio and Chaneton, 2011; Pais et al., 2013). The widespread use of farm machinery, especially<br />

in the Cerrados and the Pampas has caused shallow soil compaction and poor structural conditions in topsoil,<br />

especially associated with soybean mono-cropping and long winter fallow periods (Taboada et al., 1998; Botta,<br />

Tolon-Becerra and Melcon, 2009; Botta et al., 2010; Alvarez et al., 2014; Franzluebbers et al., 2014).<br />

12.3.7 | Waterlogging<br />

Many flat areas are affected by episodic human-induced waterlogging and ponding. This can result from<br />

poor topsoil structural and drainage conditions which limit infiltration rates. It may also be associated<br />

with extreme rainfall events linked to the periodic climate phenomena of ‘El Niño’. Waterlogging has been<br />

documented in both agricultural and pasture soils throughout the region. There are increasing problems of<br />

catastrophic flooding, landslides and sedimentation (Pla, 2003, 1996a, 2011; Restrepo et al., 2006).<br />

12.3.8 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification<br />

Natural acidification is a common process in the soils of LAC and is very intense in tropical areas of the<br />

region, because of the high rainfall. Acidic soil parent materials are also widespread (Kämpf, Curi and Marques,<br />

2009; Fassbender and Bornemisza, 1987). As industrialization is not intensive and widespread in the region,<br />

soil pollution from industrial sources is not common. Anthropogenic acidification in soil could also appear<br />

where there is excessive N-fertilization on crops like banana, vegetables and oil palm and under intensive<br />

coffee systems (Sánchez, 1981; Espinosa and Molina, 1999).<br />

12.3.9 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination<br />

Different human activities may result in the pollution of soils and adjoining water bodies caused by fertilizers<br />

and agrochemicals used in high-input agriculture, and from mining and oil spills (Nriaugu, 1994; Malm, 1998;<br />

Mol et al., 2001). Residues of herbicides such as glyphosate have been observed in soils and groundwater in<br />

fields devoted to no-till farming (Ometo et al., 2000; Christoffoleti et al., 2008; Cerdeira et al., 2011; Aparicio<br />

et al., 2013).<br />

The use of mercury compounds in mining activities and the use of huge amounts of water for shale oil<br />

exploitation are causing downstream pollution in soils and waters (Nriaugu, 1994; Malm, 1998; Mol et al.,<br />

2001). The increasing use of agricultural by-products and sludges increase N concentrations in groundwater<br />

and cause eutrophication of lagoons (Torri and Lavado, 2008).<br />

12.3.10 | Sealing<br />

According to the United Nations 1 , the population of Latin America is currently 630 million, 8.6 percent<br />

of the world’s population. This figure is expected to increase by 25 percent by 2050. Most Latin American<br />

countries are experiencing relatively low death rates and declining birth rates, resulting in slower population<br />

growth over time.<br />

Today 79.8 percent of the population of Latin America live in urban areas, and they account for 12.7 percent<br />

of the world’s urban population. Forecasts for 2050 indicate a further increase of the share of the urbanized<br />

population in LAC to 86.2 percent. The degree of urbanization is well above the global average of 54.0<br />

percent. Figure 12.2 illustrates the extent of urban areas and of urbanization for LAC countries. In relation to<br />

population, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico have the largest urban areas, while the highest rates of urbanization<br />

are associated with small states with high population densities.<br />

1 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/events/ot her/10/index.shtml<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean<br />

373


50<br />

Urban Area (SQKM)<br />

Urbanization index (%)<br />

40<br />

Urban Area (thousands SQKM)<br />

30<br />

20<br />

Urbanization index (%)<br />

10<br />

0<br />

Brazil<br />

Argentina<br />

Mexico<br />

Venezuela<br />

Chile<br />

Peru<br />

Colombia<br />

Ecuador<br />

Bolivia<br />

Paraguay<br />

Uruguay<br />

Puerto Rico<br />

Cuba<br />

Dominican Republic<br />

Costa Rica<br />

Panama<br />

Trinidad and Tobago<br />

Jamaica<br />

Guatemala<br />

Guinea<br />

Haiti<br />

Netherlands Antilles<br />

Nicaragua<br />

El Salvador<br />

Honduras<br />

Guyana<br />

Suriname<br />

Aruba<br />

French Guiana<br />

Bahamas, The<br />

Guadeloupe<br />

Martinique<br />

Barbados<br />

Virgin Islands<br />

Belize<br />

Antigua and Barbuda<br />

St. Lucia<br />

Cayman Islands<br />

Grenada<br />

St. Vincent and the Grenadines<br />

Dominica<br />

St. Kitts and Nevis<br />

Anguilla<br />

Montserrat<br />

Sao Tome and Principe<br />

British Virgin Islands<br />

St. Pierre and Miquelon<br />

Turks and Caicos Islands<br />

Figure 12.2 Extent of the urban area and the urbanization index for Latin American and Caribbean countries.<br />

12.4 | Major threats to soils<br />

Among the general threats to soil that occur in the region, the three most important ones in LAC will be<br />

discussed here in more detail.<br />

12.4.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion by water is the main soil degradation process worldwide and in LAC as well. Wind erosion is also<br />

prevalent in specific areas with arid and semiarid climates (rainfall lower than 600 mm).<br />

A high proportion of the land in LAC is on steep slopes, and the main limitation for its agricultural use is<br />

water erosion (Alegre, Felipe-Morales and La Torre, 1990; Pla, 1993, 1996a; Duvert et al., 2010; PNUMA-CEPAL,<br />

2010). However, the problems of accelerated water erosion are not confined to steep slopes, but are also<br />

widespread in agricultural areas with more gentle slopes. In general, the increasing trend of erosion in LAC<br />

is mainly due to the fast growth of the human population and to pressures put on the land by deforestation<br />

and over-grazing, and by inappropriate agricultural practices in both subsistence and large-scale high-input<br />

commercial agriculture (Pla, 1996a).<br />

Erosion in LAC is mostly caused by water. Some estimates suggest that 42 percent of flood events contribute<br />

to 70 percent of sediment export (Duvert et al., 2010). In drier areas of Mexico and Argentina on the other<br />

hand, wind erosion prevails. Estimations of areas affected by erosion in the region vary, but a conservative<br />

figure is around 15 percent for South America and 26 percent for Central America (Oldeman, 1991b).<br />

Although there is clear evidence that large and increasing areas of land are being affected by different<br />

processes of soil erosion, most of the existing evaluations of the type, extent and intensity of soil erosion at<br />

country or regional level are not very precise or objective. Mass and landslide erosion processes are usually<br />

not differentiated from surface erosion problems (Hincapié and Ramirez, 2010), leading to an often faulty<br />

identification of the origin of erosion processes (Pla, 1992, 1993, 2011). The magnitude of the soil erosion<br />

problems is highly variable, with estimated values for average soil losses in the Andes and Central America<br />

ranging between 5 and 50 percent of the area or from 100 to 1 000 Mg km -2 yr -1 . Probably almost half of<br />

agricultural lands are negatively affected by surface soil erosion at different levels, with 15-25 percent,<br />

depending on the region, strongly affected (Oldeman et al., 1991a, b).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

374<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


New regional information has been generated largely through indirect or remote sensing, usually without<br />

sufficient ground-truthing (Bai et al., 2008; Nachtergaele, Petri and Biancalani, 2011). Some indirect recent<br />

evaluations based only on soil cover and slope show a reduction in the area with risks of soil erosion to only 5<br />

percent (EC, 2013). In those evaluations, the processes of mass erosion have not received any attention or have<br />

been confused with the very different processes of surface erosion (Pla, 2011).<br />

The control of soil erosion and of the derived effects depend on appropriate land use and management<br />

planning supported by appropriate soil governance (FAO, 2012). In many LAC countries, the application of<br />

conservation measures is limited by lack of integration between conservation and development, the lack<br />

of legislation or ways to implement it, and the shortage of basic local information, trained personnel and<br />

financial resources (Pla, 1996b). With few isolated exceptions, there have not been policies and well-targeted<br />

subsidies or incentives through marketing prices and credits to induce sustainable land management. In<br />

addition, agricultural research has been oriented towards increasing productivity through the use of inputs<br />

rather than to sustainable land use. This has contributed indirectly to growing environmental problems,<br />

including soil erosion.<br />

A main objective of research on soil erosion in LAC must therefore now be to collect and evaluate data to<br />

generate technology for prediction and control of soil erosion. An understanding of the basic erosion processes<br />

in each particular situation is required in order to select an effective technology and transfer it to farmers (Pla,<br />

2003). Some empirical models to predict erosion (USLE, RUSLE) are currently used indiscriminately, without<br />

scientific evidence of their applicability to a particular situation. The uncritical use of results from these models<br />

has led to gross errors in planning land use and management (Pla, 2011). However, the RUSLE equation has<br />

been successfully adopted as a basis for soil use regulations in some countries (Alegre, Felipe-Morales and La<br />

Torre, 1990).<br />

One key area for research is the study of existing indigenous practices. An understanding of the biophysical<br />

and human factors behind these practices might indicate how they can be adopted or adapted to the present<br />

socio-economic situation.<br />

Finally, institutional support is essential for developing and assuring continuity of the required research in<br />

soil erosion and conservation practices in LAC countries (Pla, 2003).<br />

12.4.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon is the main component of humus. It is an organic compound with a stable C/N ratio<br />

which varies between 10 and 13 in most soils of LAC and of the world as a whole (Palm and Sanchez, 1990; Sisti<br />

et al., 2004; Jantalia et al., 2007). It is therefore only possible to increase the SOC content if the N content also<br />

increases to maintain the relationship (Boddey et al., 2012 a, b, 2014). The reverse is also true: increasing one<br />

unit of soil N availability due to the mineralization of soil organic nitrogen will release between 10 and 13 units<br />

of C, equivalent to around 40 kg of CO 2<br />

.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

375<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Figure 12.3 shows soil organic carbon contents and stocks (taking into account soil bulk density) in different Mexican ecosystems.<br />

Carbon concentrations (left) and carbon stocks (right) in the main ecosystems of Mexico. In both cases the bars with the strongest tone indicate a<br />

primary forest, closed pasture or permanent agriculture. Bars with the softer tone indicate a secondary forest, open pasture or annual agriculture. Source:<br />

Cruz-Gaistardo, 2014.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

376<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Primary forests have higher carbon concentration (in percentage) than secondary forests. However, the<br />

latter are better sinks because they have a greater capacity for conversion of CO 2<br />

to biomass since they are in<br />

a more active phase of growth (Vargas et al., 2008). About 185 Pg of organic carbon is stored at 1 m depth in<br />

LAC soils (16 percent of the world’s soil carbon reserve). Half (95 Pg) of this amount is stored in the soils of the<br />

Amazon region, and about 52 percent of this carbon pool is held in the top 0.3 m of the soil profile (Batjes and<br />

Dijkshoorm, 1998).<br />

LAC biomes where there is high risk of carbon losses – and also biodiversity losses – are the Amazon and the<br />

Atlantic Forest of Brazil, the Pampas of Argentina, the west coast of Colombia and the core of the Sierra Madre<br />

del Sur and Sierra Madre Oriental areas in Mexico (Hansen et al., 2013). Satellite images reveal that more than<br />

half a million square kilometers of Amazon rainforest was destroyed between 1984 and 2005 and replaced by<br />

agriculture and the introduction of more than 240 million head of cattle (Gardi et al., 2014).<br />

The richest organic carbon soils in LAC, with stocks higher than 250 tonnes per hectare, are located in the<br />

sedimentary region of the Carso Huasteco and the Peninsula of Yucatán in Mexico, the tropical forests of<br />

Guatemala and Costa Rica, the region of Cauca and Magdalena in Colombia, the Orinoco delta in Venezuela,<br />

in the eastern Amazon, the Uruguayan savannas, the Valdivia forests in Chile, and the wet grasslands and<br />

steppes of Patagonia in Argentina (Gardi et al., 2014). In these regions the highest proportion of Histosols,<br />

Andosols and Gleysols with high concentrations of soil carbon is found. The lowest soil carbon stocks are<br />

found in arid regions of LAC (the deserts of Mexico, Peru and Chile, as well as the drier regions of Brazil and<br />

Argentina). In these arid regions, it is essential to preserve the scarce carbon (less than 20 tonnes ha -1 ) due to<br />

the fragility of the ecosystems found there (Figure 12.4).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

377<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Figure 12.4: Organic carbon stock (or density) in soils of Latin America and the Caribbean, expressed in Gigagrams per hectare.<br />

Source: Gardi et al., 2014.<br />

Land use changes from forestry to urban or livestock use cause the greatest loss of soil carbon in LAC (Lal,<br />

2005, 2006; van der Werf et al., 2010; INPE, 2010). The loss of ground cover due to deforestation exposes<br />

the soil to direct precipitation that could cause erosion and compaction of the soil surface microstructure in<br />

addition to carbon loss. Deforestation of tropical forests prevents the return to the soil of about 15 tonnes of<br />

organic inputs per ha eachyear. Agricultural soils return on average only 2 tonnes of residues per ha each year<br />

(Hughes, Kauffman and Jaramillo, 1999).<br />

Forest cover loss in the global tropical rainforest biome accounts for about one third (32 percent) of all<br />

global forest cover loss, and nearly half of this loss of tropical rainforest occurs in South American rainforests.<br />

Several studies have been carried out and information is documented in the region related to deforestation<br />

and reforestation (CIAT, 2014; Gardi et al., 2014). The tropical dry forests of South America had the highest rate<br />

of tropical forest loss, due to deforestation dynamics in the Chaco woodlands of Argentina, Paraguay and<br />

Bolivia (Grau and Aide, 2008; Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010). Brazil is a global exception in terms of forest policy<br />

change, with a dramatic policy-driven reduction of deforestation in the Amazon Basin (INPE, 2010, 2013;<br />

Spavorek, 2012) (Figure 12.5).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

378<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Prepared by C. Cruz-Gaistardo<br />

Figure 12.5: Tree cover in the tonne 2000 and forest loss in the period 2000-2014. (A) Brazil, centered at 5.3°S, 50.2°W; (B) Mexico and<br />

Guatemala, centered at 16.3°N, 90.8°W and (C) Perú, centered at 8.7°S, 74.9°W; (D) Argentina, centered at 27.0°S, 62.3°W and (E) Chile,<br />

centered at 72.5°S, 37.4°W. Source: Hansen et al., 2013.<br />

The litter on the ground also influences carbon fluxes to the mineral soil. A conserved forest can accumulate<br />

up to 10 tonnes of litter per hectare; however, when this forest is degrading its accumulation rate drops to 2<br />

tonnes per ha (Cruz-Gaistardo, Díaz and Martínez, 2010). In an extreme case of erosion, litter would completely<br />

disappear. The loss of soil carbon results in the loss of natural fertility and of the existing biodiversity. These<br />

factors lead to extreme soil degradation, and could affect the local and regional economy (Smith et al., 2007).<br />

In the temperate Pampas of Argentina and Uruguay, conversion of grassland and pastures to agriculture<br />

caused soil organic carbon stocks to decrease from 27 Mg ha -1 to 19-20 Mg ha -1 in the first 20 cm of soil profile<br />

(Alvarez et al., 2009).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

379<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Across LAC, there are initiatives to improve soil health and the environment. The large cities in LAC, such as<br />

Mexico City, Lima, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago and Bogota, manage their urban wastes,<br />

which are rich in organic carbon, in order to reduce pollution, especially in the surrounding rural areas which<br />

typically receive the waste (Da Silva and Donini, 2008). In the region of Santiago de Chile, for example, about<br />

200 Gg of urban sludge and muds are produced each day by the seven million inhabitants (CEPAL, 2010). These<br />

wastes are currently being evaluated as possible fertilizers for farmland. However, this type of sludge may need<br />

up to threeyears to be mineralized, dissolved and available to plants. There is a risk that the concentration of<br />

metals (mainly zinc and copper) may increase in the soil (González, 2008). In Brazil, there are initiatives to<br />

grow rice without flooding the soils (so reducing methane emissions) and to cut sugar cane without resorting<br />

to direct burning. In Colombia and Cuba the use of organic fertilizers is widely promoted (Willer and Lukas,<br />

2009).<br />

International policy initiatives such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change<br />

(UNCCCD) and the programme for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)<br />

often lack the institutional, investment and scientific capacity to begin implementation. In effect, policy is<br />

sometimes ahead of operational capabilities, even when the necessary information is available. By contrast,<br />

Brazil’s use of Landsat data in documenting trends in deforestation was crucial to its policy formulation and<br />

implementation. To date, only Brazil produces and shares spatially explicit information on annual forest extent<br />

and change (UNFCCC, 2013; INPE, 2010, 2013).<br />

Most soil sampling sites in LAC have been selected to address questions related to fertility or taxonomy.<br />

They were not selected to specifically quantify carbon in different pools (above- and below-ground).<br />

Consequently, they cannot be used for payment for environmental services. To overcome this, Mexico and<br />

Brazil are currently conducting national soil surveys designed to quantify soil carbon, increasing the number<br />

of sites within a systematic grid and using state-of-the-art instrumentation. The surveys are employing<br />

field spectrophotometers and micrometeorological towers to measure carbon fluxes between the land and<br />

atmosphere (Vargas et al., 2013). In the case of Mexico, there are currently 11 000 sites with systematic<br />

information on all carbon reservoirs and coordinated programs for re-sampling and continuous monitoring.<br />

12.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization<br />

Salt-affected soils are found mainly in the arid and semi-arid regions. Salinization caused by irrigation<br />

affects 18.4 million ha in LAC, particularly in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru (AQUASTAT, 1997). Many<br />

of the large plains of the continent are affected by natural salinization, but land use changes and overgrazing<br />

have also caused topsoil salinization (Taboada et al., 2011; Bandera, 2013; Di Bella et al., 2015).<br />

Around 85 million ha are affected by excess of salts and sodium in Argentina, including arid and semi-arid<br />

zones (Szabolcs, 1979). Information provided by Bandera (2013) indicates that Argentina has approximately<br />

600 000 ha of irrigated soils affected by salinity, which is the third largest area in a single country after Russia<br />

and Australia. In Argentina there are also areas of soils affected by salts in humid and sub humid climates,<br />

where salts come from groundwater. This is the case of the Pampa Deprimida (Depressed), the Buenos Aires<br />

East-Center (9 million ha), Buenos Aires Northwest (2.5 million ha), and the Submeridional Lowlands of Chaco<br />

and Santa Fe provinces (3 million ha).<br />

The irrigated agricultural area of the northeast region of Brazil is around 500 thousand ha, and 25–30<br />

percent is in the process of salinization (Heinze, 2002). Irrigation-induced salinization is an important land<br />

degradation process that affects crop yield in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Gypsum has been used as a<br />

corrective measure for saline soils in these areas (Moreira et al., 2014). The addition of gypsum to irrigation water<br />

improves soil physical and chemical properties and can be considered as an alternative for the reclamation of<br />

saline-sodic and sodic alluvial soils in Northeast Brazil (Silveira et al., 2008).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

380<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


The salinity of soils on the cultivated land in the coastal valleys in northern Chile (Azapa and Lluta valleys) is<br />

generated by the salinity of irrigation water.<br />

In Colombia, soils susceptible to salinization cover approximately 86 592 km 2 , of which 90 percent are<br />

located in dry regions (Casierra-Posada, Pachón and Niño-Medina, 2007). Areas susceptible to salinization are<br />

located in the Caribbean region and inter-Andean valleys and highlands.<br />

In Cuba, the soils with primary salinity only occupy restricted areas, often near to sea coasts. Secondary<br />

salinity, however, affects the majority of Cuban soils. The main causes of secondary salinity are: increase of the<br />

level of saline groundwater, deforestation of hilly lands, and use of saline water for irrigation (Alvarez et al.,<br />

2008). There are 160 000 ha under rice, of which approximately 100 000 ha have problems of salinity and/or<br />

sodicity, in varying degrees (Borroto and Castillo, 1986).<br />

In Ecuador, approximately 8.1 million ha have soils suitable for agriculture, of which about a quarter are<br />

currently used for agriculture. This includes: production of short cycle crops such as rice, maize, cassava, soy,<br />

watermelon, melon, tomato, pepper; cultivation of perennial crops, including cocoa, coffee, sugarcane and<br />

banana; and, on 63 percent of the area, natural and artificial pastures. One of the most serious problems<br />

facing this ecosystem is the increase in salinity. This is caused by irrigation with waters of medium quality<br />

and by excessive use of fertilizers in fert-irrigation. <strong>Soil</strong> salinity constitutes one of the main causes of crop<br />

yield reduction, and a significant part of Ecuadorian highland soils are considered as having high-salinity. The<br />

main causes are the pyroclastic nature of the soils, the effects of erosion, and the poor use of irrigation water<br />

(Jaramillo, Arahana and Torres, 2014).<br />

In Mexico, approximately 20 percent of irrigated agricultural land (6 million ha) is affected by salinity and<br />

sodicity problems. In 1964 it was estimated that, in the irrigation districts of Culiacán, Fuerte River, Río Mayo,<br />

and Rio Yaqui which have a total area of 610 701 ha, over one third (218 495 ha, 36 percent) of the area had<br />

some kind of salt problem (Palacios-Vélez, 2012).<br />

The lack of complete feasibility studies prior to implementing irrigation projects in Peru has caused<br />

increased drainage and salinity problems on 2 500 km 2 in the Coastal Area. In fact, all irrigation projects on the<br />

coast have experienced drainage and salinity problems within a fewyears after starting to irrigate (Cornejo,<br />

1970). More than 300 000 ha (40 percent of the cultivated land in Peru’s Coastal Valleys) were affected by soil<br />

salinity in the 1970s. About 25 percent (roughly 190 000 ha) were characterized by light to extreme salinity<br />

(>4 dS m -1 ), enough to have negative effects on crop productivity (World Bank, 2007). Currently, there is little<br />

interest from the government to stop degradation of land. Even up-to-date information is lacking and what<br />

there is dates back to the 1970s (Santayana, 2012).<br />

In Venezuela, the existence of problems of salinity was recognized in soils in the arid and semi-arid areas<br />

of the States of Zulia, Falcón, Lara, Anzoátegui and Trujillo (Villafañe, 1995). Falcon was one of the major<br />

vegetable producing states in Venezuela until soil degradation by salts had negative effects on yields and<br />

caused the abandonment of farms in this area.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

381<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


12.5 | Case studies<br />

12.5.1 | Argentina<br />

Argentina is the eighth largest country in the world, with an area of 2 780 400 km 2 . Seventy percent of<br />

its territory has an arid, semiarid or dry sub-humid climate, and the remaining 30 percent has a humid or<br />

sub humid climate. Regions under humid and sub humid temperate and subtropical climates (e.g. Pampean,<br />

Chaco and Mesopotamia) concentrate on the production of cereals, oilseeds, industrial crops, forages, forest<br />

plantations, domestic livestock and dairy products (SIIA, 2015).<br />

Agriculture in Argentina began in earnest at the end of 19th century with the arrival of European immigrants<br />

and government colonization policies (Barski and Gelman, 2001; Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010). Agriculture<br />

and livestock grazing expanded until the mid-20th century by bringing new lands into production, largely<br />

employing low intensity production practices (Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010). This resulted in moderate to severe<br />

land degradation, not only in agricultural areas but also in dryland areas (SAGyP-CFA, 1995). In the second half<br />

of the 20th century agriculture intensified, especially in the Pampean region, with the use of more productive<br />

cereal varieties, hybrids and genetically modified crops, fertilizers and no till farming (Paruelo, Guerschman<br />

and Verón, 2005; Satorre, 2005; Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010).<br />

In recentyears, the agricultural frontier has expanded to the north-east, the north-west and the west<br />

(Figure 12.6), moving into areas with drier climates and/or less fertile soils (Paruelo, Guerschman and Verón,<br />

2005; Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010). As a result, the cultivated area increased from about 15 to 32 million ha from<br />

1988 to 2010, and bulk grain production shot up from about 20 to nearly 100 million tonnes in the same period<br />

(SIIA, 2015). At the same time, the ratio of crops produced changed. In 1990, the mix was: 37 percent wheat, 30<br />

percent soybean and 13 percent maize. Twenty fouryears later (in 2014), production was 61 percent soybean, 19<br />

percent maize and only 11 percent wheat (SIIA, 2015). This shift was driven by export demand for oil and biofuel<br />

soybean (Gobierno Argentino, 2014). Although a success in terms of fuel saving and adoption by farmers, this<br />

move towards a soybean monoculture appears to have driven many smaller farmers out of business (Pengue,<br />

2005).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

382<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Figure 12.6 Expansion of the agricultural frontier under rainfed conditions in the north of Argentina. Source: Viglizzo & Jobbagy, 2010.<br />

It has been estimated that agriculture in Argentina during the 20th century decreased soil carbon stocks by<br />

27-50 percent. The causes included the turning over of grasslands and prairie soils rich in organic C with mould<br />

board and disc ploughs, and the loss of crop diversity (Studdert, Echeverría and Casanovas, 1997; Viglizzo and<br />

Jobbagy, 2010; Sainz Rozas, Echeverria and Angelini, 2011; Caride, Piñeiro and Paruelo, 2012; Milesi Delaye et<br />

al., 2013). The potential of no-till farming to increase soil organic C stocks is still under discussion. In a review<br />

of 42 no-till vs plough till data sets from field experiments conducted in the Pampean region, Steinbach and<br />

Álvarez (2006) concluded that a 2.76 Mg ha -1 organic C increase was observed in no-till systems compared with<br />

tilled systems, with a relatively higher increase of organic C in areas of low organic matter level. However,<br />

Álvarez et al. (2009) observed no significant change in topsoil organic C content after adoption of continuous<br />

no-till in previously conventionally tilled loam, silty loam, and silty clay loam soils in well-managed farms of<br />

the region.<br />

No-till farming is considered to improve topsoil physical properties, especially when combined with suitable<br />

crop rotations and pastures (Álvarez et al., 2014). However, the prevalence of soybean mono-cropping in the<br />

Pampean and Chaco regions promoted unfavourable topsoil physical conditions such as laminar and massive<br />

aggregation, shallow compaction and decreased infiltration rates (Sasal, Andriulo and Taboada, 2006; Álvarez<br />

and Steinbach, 2009; Álvarez et al., 2009, 2014). These structural forms were found to decrease soybean yields<br />

under rainfed conditions (Bacigaluppo et al., 2011).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

383<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Fertilizer use in Argentina was quite low until the mid-1990s and despite the eight-fold increase in fertilizer<br />

use in the last two decades, negative budgets of nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur still persist in the Pampean<br />

region (Lavado and Taboada, 2009; Viglizzo and Jobbagy, 2010). Nutrient removal by grains was found to have<br />

exceeded application by 2.3-3.2, 1.4-2.0 and 2.0-2.6 times for N, P and S over a fouryear period, respectively.<br />

Phosphorus is a special issue, as it has decreased to ‘deficient’ levels in several areas (Sainz Rozas, Echeverria<br />

and Angelini, 2012).<br />

During the 20th century, more than 1.2 million ha (32 percent of the agricultural area) were affected by<br />

moderate to severe soil water erosion, characterized by 47 to 131 Mg ha -1 yr -1 soil losses and by 5 to 20 cm surface<br />

horizon thickness decreases (SAGyP-CFA, 1995). According to estimations by Viglizzo and Frank (2010), the<br />

widespread adoption of no-tillage helped to control erosion losses, which was reported to have decreased to<br />

only 7 Mg ha -1 yr -1 . However, more field data are needed to check these estimations.<br />

Salt affected soils cover more than 70 million ha in Argentina, the third largest area in any country in the<br />

world (FAO, 1976). At least 600 000 ha of irrigated soils under arid and semiarid climates are affected by<br />

anthropogenic salinization, often related to unsuitable drainage management and/or poor water quality.<br />

In sub humid and humid regions, there are about 12 million ha of naturally salinized soils. In these areas,<br />

anthropogenic salinization was also promoted by livestock grazing (Taboada, Rubio and Chaneton, 2011),<br />

supplementary irrigation (Andriulo et al., 1998) deforestation (Nosetto et al., 2012) or afforestation (Jobbagy<br />

and Jackson, 2004).<br />

A detailed evaluation of the state of land degradation in the drier areas of Argentina came to the following<br />

conclusions (FAO, 2010):<br />

• Eighty one percent, or more than 1 240 000 km 2 of the evaluated systems, present some process of<br />

degradation. The degree of degradation of dry lands, defined by the intensity of the process, varies from<br />

‘non-degraded’ to ‘extreme’. This result is obtained after adding all degradation processes identified,<br />

including water and wind erosion, salinization and loss of vegetative cover.<br />

• Amongst the degrading processes analyzed, 50 percent of the area is affected largely by processes<br />

of biological degradation (variation of vegetative cover, loss of habitats, and decrease of biomass).<br />

Twenty 6 percent of the area presents a strong degree of degradation. The rate of degradation is slow<br />

in 40 percent of the areas with biological degradation, while almost 20 percent of these areas present<br />

a high rate of increase.<br />

• Fifteen percent of the land use systems analyzed presented symptoms of physical degradation of the<br />

soil (compaction, crusting, flooding). Of these 60 percent present a high degree of degradation. Thirty<br />

percent are degrading at a moderate rate.<br />

• Five percent of the area analyzed presented symptoms of degradation of water resources (decrease<br />

of the average moisture content of the soil, changes in volume, reduction of the quality of water,<br />

reduction of the capacity to capture and retain water). Eighty percent of the area presents a strong<br />

degree of degradation, with approximately 20 percent having a moderate rate of increase.<br />

• Forty percent of the area analyzed is affected by wind erosion, with a degree of degradation that is<br />

mostly moderate to strong with a tendency to increase. Water erosion affects 40 percent of the area<br />

analyzed (Figure 12.7), with a similar degree of severity to wind erosion, although with a lower rate of<br />

increase.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

384<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Figure 12.7 Percentage of areas affected by wind (a) and water erosion (b) in Argentina. Source: Prego et al., 1988.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

385<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


12.5.2 | Cuba<br />

The main island of Cuba is the largest island in the West Indies, with a total land area of 104 945 km².<br />

The area of the country as a whole, including the Isla de la Juventud (2 200 km 2 ) and around 4 195 keys and<br />

small islands, is 110 860 km 2 . The topography is mostly flat to rolling, with rugged hills and mountains in<br />

the southeast and south-central area. The Cuban mountain range system is formed by four massifs covering<br />

about 18 percent of the surface of the Cuban archipelago. The surface cover of Cuba consists of cropland and<br />

crop/natural vegetation mosaics (44 percent), shrub lands, savanna and grasslands (24 percent), forests (23<br />

percent) and wetlands (9 percent).<br />

Mean annual rainfall is 1 335 mm, with a pronounced seasonal variation between the driest and wettest<br />

months. Rainfall levels vary widely across the country, from 300 mm annually in the Guantánamo area of the<br />

south to more than 3 000 mm in the north. Mean annual temperature is 25°C (CUBA, 2014).<br />

In recent decades, significant variations have been detected in the country’s climatic patterns (Centella et<br />

al., 1997). An overall increase in temperature has been accompanied by a reduction in annual rainfall totals of<br />

10-20 percent and an increase in inter-annual variation in rainfall of 5-10 percent, with reduced rainfall in the<br />

rainy season and increased rainfall in the dry season (Lapinel, Rivero and Cutié, 1993; Goldenberg et al., 2001).<br />

At the same time, the frequency of unseasonal droughts has increased.<br />

The National Environment Strategy 2007/2010 is the guiding document for Cuban environmental policy.<br />

It defines the five main environmental issues in Cuba, which are: land degradation; factors affecting forest<br />

coverage; pollution; loss of biological diversity; and water scarcity. The Strategy proposes policies and<br />

instruments to tackle the five issues in order to improve environmental protection and the rational use of<br />

national resources. Land degradation is considered the most important of the five issues.<br />

Cuba has a wide variety of soils, including those developed over sedimentary limestone (Nitisols, Ferralsols<br />

and Lixisols), and others over older rocks (Cambisols and Phaeozems). Cuba has complete soil studies and<br />

maps at cartographic scales of 1:250 000, 1:50 000 and 1:25 000 (Gardi et al., 2014).<br />

The most recent assessment of land degradation at local and national level was carried out between 2006<br />

and 2010, using a standard methodology (Liniger et al., 2011; Bunning, McDonagh and Rioux, 2011). In parallel,<br />

the sustainable land management practices applied to stop or reverse the degradation process in the country<br />

were inventoried in each land use system (AMA, 2010). A first set of 23 thematic maps at 1: 250 000 scale was<br />

produced in 2010 and these were updated in 2013 (IGT-AMA, 2014).<br />

Fifteen different types of degradation, affecting the whole country to a lesser or more serious degree<br />

were recognized (Figures 12.8 and 12.9). The four main types of degradation in terms of extent are: (1) loss of<br />

topsoil by water erosion, which covers more than 30 000 km 2 and is present in all provinces; (2) the loss of<br />

vegetative cover, which has a similar extent and also occurs in every province; (3) processes of salinization and<br />

compaction, which cover between 10 000 to 20 000 thousand km 2 in 14 and 11 provinces respectively; and<br />

(4) loss of habitat condition and areas affected by fire, which occupy up to 5 000 km 2 each in nine provinces of<br />

the country. The other types of degradation such as aridity, loss of soil fertility, reduced organic matter content<br />

and reduced quality of surface and groundwater occupy areas that do not exceed 5 000 km 2 .<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

386<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Figure 12.8 Predominant types of land degradation in Cuba. Source: FAO, 2010.<br />

Figure 12.9 Extent of land degradation in land use system units in Cuba. Source: FAO, 2010.<br />

As far as the intensity of degradation is concerned, 12 percent of Cuban territory is classified as grade 1<br />

(slight), while 68 percent is grade 2 (slight or moderate intensity) and 19 percent is grade 3 (strong or intense<br />

degradation). The last two grades are mainly located in the central and eastern area (Figure 12.10).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

387<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Figure 12.10: Intensity of land degradation in Cuba. Source: FAO, 2010.<br />

A systematic local inventory of land degradation processes was carried out in the dryland areas of Cuba.<br />

The drylands occupy a total area of ​nearly 10 000 km 2 , and occur mainly in the eastern region of the country,<br />

between Camagüey and Guantanamo, covering 6 provinces and 20 municipalities. Surveys were carried<br />

out in the most representative areas of Camaguey-Tunas, Granma and Guantanamo covering soil health,<br />

water quality and quantity, vegetation status and biodiversity, among others. Since 2001, the country has<br />

established different programmes and strategies based on sustainable soil management approaches in order<br />

to combat soil degradation. The most important of these is the National Program for <strong>Soil</strong> Improvement and<br />

Conservation, which is overseen by the <strong>Soil</strong> Institute. Over the last decade, at least 500 000 ha have benefited<br />

from these programs, which are financially supported by Cuban government (Instituto de Suelos, 2001).<br />

12.6 | Conclusions and recommendations<br />

LAC has a wide range of biomes and probably the largest potential area of cropland in the world. The soils<br />

of the region are subject to a number of threats, of which the three most important are: soil erosion, organic<br />

carbon losses and salinization. Other threats such as imbalance of nutrients, loss of biodiversity, compaction,<br />

waterlogging, contamination, and sealing and capping are also common (Table 12.1).<br />

The most important ecosystem services affected in LAC are: climate regulation through the disturbance<br />

of the C and N cycles due to deforestation, and water regulation and food production on sloping lands.<br />

Deforestation and erosion caused by inappropriate land use are the initial causes of various anthropogenic<br />

threats to soil quality.<br />

An enhanced natural resource information system is necessary in many countries of LAC, in order to perform<br />

a better diagnosis of soil conditions and their level of degradation. This will allow possible solutions to be<br />

identified, including land use planning and appropriate legislation.<br />

A major effort is required to design and implement sustainable soil management in the region, taking into<br />

account the risks and threats assessed as well as the particular characteristics of each country. A participatory<br />

process is required if the final goal is to be reached, namely, protection of the soil resource for food security and<br />

for the production of ecosystem services for present and future human well-being.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

388<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Threat to<br />

soil function<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

Organic<br />

carbon change<br />

Salinization<br />

and sodification<br />

Nutrient<br />

imbalance<br />

Loss of soil<br />

biodiversity<br />

Compaction<br />

Waterlogging<br />

<strong>Soil</strong><br />

acidification<br />

Contamination<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> sealing<br />

and land take<br />

Summary<br />

Widespread across the<br />

region.<br />

Landslides are accelerated<br />

by land use in highland<br />

areas<br />

Declines are caused by<br />

deforestation,<br />

intensive cultivation<br />

of grasslands and<br />

monoculture.<br />

Caused by inadequate<br />

irrigation technology<br />

and water quality. Land<br />

use changes also promote<br />

salinization.<br />

Most countries have<br />

negative nutrient balances<br />

due to over-extraction.<br />

In some cases over<br />

fertilization also causes<br />

nutrient imbalance.<br />

Suspected to occur in<br />

deforested and overexploited<br />

agricultural<br />

areas.<br />

Caused by overgrazing<br />

and intensive agricultural<br />

traffic.<br />

Due to deforestation and<br />

poor structural conditions<br />

in agricultural areas.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification is limited<br />

to some areas with<br />

overuse of N fertilizers<br />

Industrial sources cause<br />

soil contamination in<br />

some places.<br />

Non-point soil pollution<br />

prevails in sites with<br />

intensive agriculture<br />

(e.g. herbicides residues).<br />

In some valleys and<br />

floodplains, urbanization<br />

has expanded onto fertile<br />

soils.<br />

Condition and Trend<br />

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good<br />

Confidence<br />

In<br />

In trend<br />

condition<br />

Table 12.1 Summary of <strong>Soil</strong> Threats Status, trends and uncertainties in in Latin America and the Caribbean<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

389<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


References<br />

Alegre, J.C., Felipe-Morales, C. & La Torre. 1990. <strong>Soil</strong> Erosion Studies in Peru. Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> and Water<br />

Conservation, 45: 417-420.<br />

Alegre, J.C., Pashansi, B. & Lavelle, P. 1996. Dynamics of soil physical properties in Amazonina agroecosytem<br />

inocultated by earthworms. SSSAJ, 60: 1522-1529.<br />

Álvarez, C.R., Taboada, M.A., Gutiérrez Boem, F.H., Bono, A., Fernández, P.L. & Prystupa, P. 2009.<br />

Topsoil properties as affected by tillage systems in the Rolling Pampa region of Argentina. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of<br />

America Journal, 73: 1242-1250.<br />

Álvarez, C.R., Taboada, M.A., Perelman, S.B. & Morrás, H.J. 2014. Topsoil structure in no-tilled soils in the<br />

Rolling Pampas, Argentina. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 52: 533-542.<br />

Álvarez, R. & Steinbach, H. 2009. A review of the effects of tillage systems on some soil physical properties,<br />

water content, nitrate availability and crop yields in the Argentine Pampas. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research, 104: 1-15.<br />

Alves, B.J.R., Boddey, R.M. & Urquiaga, S. 2003. The success of BNF in soybean in Brazil. Plant & <strong>Soil</strong>., 252:<br />

1-9.<br />

AMA. 2010. Alcance, resultados e impactos del proyecto LADA en Cuba. (Also available at http://www.educambiente.<br />

co.cu/Desercuba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45:lada&catid=36:miscelaneas)<br />

Andriulo, A., Galetto, M.L., Ferreyra, C., Cordone, G., Sasal, C., Abrego, F., Galina, J. & Rimatori, Y.F.<br />

1998. The effect of 11 years of supplementary irrigation on some soil properties. Physico-chemical properties.<br />

Actas XVI Congreso Argentino de la Ciencia del suelo, Villa Carlos Paz, 247 - 258. [in Spanish]<br />

Aparicio, V.C., De Gerónimo, E., Marino, D., Primost, J., Carriquiriborde, P. & Costa, J.L. 2013.<br />

Environmental fate of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters and soil of agricultural<br />

basins. Chemosphere., 93(9):1866-1873.<br />

AQUASTAT. 1997. Tablas resumen para America Latina y el Caribe. FAO. (Also available at http/www.fao.org/<br />

GEO-2-199.)<br />

Bacigaluppo, S., Bodrero, M.L., Balzarini, M., Gerster, G.R., Andriani, J. M., Enrico, J. M. & Dardanelli,<br />

J.L. 2011. Main edaphic and climatic variables explaining soybean yield in Argiudolls under no-tilled systems.<br />

European Journal of Agronomy. 35: 247-254.<br />

Bai Z. G., Dent, D.L., Olsson, L. & Schaepman, M.E. 2008. Proxy global assessment of land degradation.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Use and Management, 24(3): 223-234.<br />

Balotta, E.L., Colozzi Filho, A.A., Andrade, D.S. & Dick, R.P. 2004. Long-term tillage and crop rotation<br />

effects on microbial biomass and C and N mineralization in a Brazilian Oxisol. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research, 77(2):<br />

137–145.<br />

Bandera, R. 2013. Rehabilitación de suelos salino-sódicos: evaluación de enmiendas y de especies forrajeras. Tesis<br />

presentada para optar al título de Magíster de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Área Recursos Naturales. 66 pp.<br />

Barski, O. & Gelman, J. 2001. Historia del agro argentino. Desde la Conquista hasta fines del siglo XX. Buenos<br />

Aires, Grijalbo Mondadori. 460 pp.<br />

Batjes, J.A. & Dijkshoorm. 1999. Carbon and nitrogen stocks in the soils of the Amazon Region. Geoderma,<br />

89: 273–286.<br />

Bertiller, M.B., Ares, J.O. & Bisigato, A.J. 2002. Multiscale indicators of land degradation in the Patagonia<br />

Monte, Argentina. Environmental Management, 30(5): 704-715.<br />

Bertsch, F., Henríquez, C., Ramírez, F. & Sancho, F. 2002. Site-specific nutrient management in the<br />

Highlands of Cartago province (Costa Rica). Better Crops International, 16(1): 16-19.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

390<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Boddey, R.M., Alves, B.J.R, Jantalia, C.P., Machado, P.L.O.A., Soares, L.H.B. & Urquiaga, S. 2012a.<br />

Praticas mitigadoras das emissões de gases de efeito estufa na agropecuária brasileira. In R.M. Boddey, M.L.<br />

Lima, B.J.R. Alves, P.L.O.de A. Machado & S. Urquiaga, eds. Carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions in Brazilian<br />

agriculture, pp. 327-347. Brasilia, Embrapa, DF.<br />

Boddey, R.M., Alves, B.J.R, Urquiaga, S., Jantalia, C.P., Martin –Neto, L., Madari, B.E., Milori, D.M.B. &<br />

Machado, P.L.O.A. 2012b. Estoques de carbono nos solos do Brasil. Quantidade e mecanismos de acúmulo e<br />

preservação. In R.M. Boddey, M.L. Lima, B.J.R. Alves, P.L.O.de A. Machado & S. Urquiaga, eds. Carbon stocks and<br />

greenhouse gas emissions in Brazilian agriculture, pp. 33-82. Brasilia, Embrapa, DF.<br />

Boddey, R.M., Lima, M.L., Alves, B.J.R., Machado, P.L.O.de A. & Urquiaga, S. (eds.) 2014. Carbon stocks and<br />

greenhouse gas emissions in Brazilian agriculture. Embrapa, Brasilia, DF. 374 pp.<br />

Borroto, M. & Castillo, D. 1986. Ponencia sobre suelos salinos en Cuba y metodología para su mejoramiento. La<br />

Habana, Ministerio de la Agricultura. 35 pp.<br />

Botta, G.F., Tolon-Becerra, A. & Melcon, F.B. 2009. Seedbed compaction produced by traffic on four tillage<br />

regimes in the rolling Pampas of Argentina. <strong>Soil</strong> Till. Res., 105(1): 128–134.<br />

Botta, G.F., Tolon-Becerra, A., Lastra-Bravo, X. & Tourn, M. 2010. Tillage and traffic effects (planters and<br />

tractors) on soil compaction and soybean (Glycine max L.) yields in Argentinean pampas. <strong>Soil</strong> Till. Res., 110(1):<br />

167–174.<br />

Bunning, S., McDonagh, J. & Rioux, J. 2011. Manual for local level assessment of land degradation and sustainable<br />

land management. LADA Technical Report No 11. Rome, FAO.<br />

Campillo, R., Urquiaga, S., Pino, I. & Montenegro, A. 2003. Estimación de la fijación biológica de<br />

nitrógeno en leguminosas forrajeras mediante la metodología del 15N. Agricultura Tecnica., 63: 169-179.<br />

Campillo, R., Urquiaga, S., Undurraga, P., Pino, I. & Boddey, R.M. 2005. Strategies to optimise biological<br />

nitrogen fixation in legume/grass pastures in the southern region of Chile. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 273: 57-67.<br />

Caride, C., Piñeiro, G. & Paruelo, J.M. 2012. How does agricultural management modify ecosystem services<br />

in the Argentine Pampas? The effects on soil C dynamics. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 154: 23-33.<br />

Casierra-Posada, F., Pachón, C.A. & Niño-Medina, R.C. 2007. Análisis bromatológico en frutos de tomate<br />

(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) afectados por salinidad por NaCl. Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación<br />

Científica, 10(2): 95-104.<br />

Centella, A., Naranjo, L., Paz, L., Cárdenas, P., Lapinel, B., Ballester, M., Pérez, R., Alfonso, A., González,<br />

C., Limia, M. & Sosa, M. 1997. Variaciones y cambios del clima en Cuba. Informe Técnico. Centro Nacional de<br />

Clima, Instituto de Meteorología. Cuba, La Habana. 58 pp.<br />

CEPAL. 2010. Official web site. Santiago de Chile, Vitacura. (Also available at http://www.cepal.org/en)<br />

Cerdeira, A.L., Gazziero, D.L.P., Duke, S.O. & Matallo, M.B. 2011. Agricultural Impacts of Glyphosate-<br />

Resistant Soybean Cultivation in South America. J. Agric. Food Chem., 59(11): 5799–5807.<br />

Christoffoleti, P.J., Galli, A.J.B., Carvalho, S.J.P., Moreira, M.S., Nicolai, M., Foloni, L.L., Martins, B.A.B.<br />

& Ribeiro, D.N. 2008. Pest Management Science. Special Issue. Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds and Crops, 64(4):<br />

422–427.<br />

CIAT. 2014. Official web site. Colombia, Cali. (Also available at https://ciat.cgiar.org/)<br />

Comerma, J, Larralde, R. & Soriano, J. 1971. Aumento de la productividad agrícola a través de los trabajos<br />

de conservación de suelos. México I Seminario Latinoamericano FAO/PNUD/ México. Evaluación sistemática<br />

de los recursos de tierras y aguas. Agronomía Tropical, 23: 95- 113.<br />

Cornejo, A. 1970. <strong>Resources</strong> of Arid South America. In H.E. Dregne, ed. Arid Lands in Transition, pp. 345-380.<br />

AAAS.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

391<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Cruz-Gaistardo, C. 2014. Inventario de Gases de Efecto Invernadero 2014. Reporte Bianual para el sector<br />

USCUSS, sector suelos. México, PNUD-FAO-CONAFOR.<br />

Cruz-Gaistardo, C., Díaz, V. & Martínez, J. 2010. Inventario Estatal Forestal y de Suelos. México, Secretaría del<br />

Medio Ambiente del Estado de Aguascalientes.<br />

CUBA. 2014. Anuario Estadístico 2013. Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas.<br />

Da Silva, A. & Donini M.S. 2008. Compostagem: A reciclagem da major parte dos residuos urbanos. Brasil,<br />

Universidade Estadual Paulista.<br />

D’Accunto, L, Semmartin, M. & Ghersa, C.M. 2014. Uncropped field margins to mitigate soil carbon losses<br />

in agricultural landscapes. Agricultural, Ecosystems and Environment, 183: 60-68.<br />

de Moraes Sa, J.C. & Lal, R. 2009. Stratification ratio of soil organic matter pools as an indicator of carbon<br />

sequestration in a tillage chronosequence on a Brazilian Oxisol. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research, 103(1): 46–56.<br />

Di Bella, C.R., Rodríguez, A.M., Jacobo, E.J., Golluscio, R.A. & Taboada, M.A. 2015. Impact of cattle<br />

grazing on temperate coastal salt marsh soils. <strong>Soil</strong> Use and Management. (in press)<br />

Duvert, C., Gratiot, N., Evrard, O., Navratil, O., Némery, J., Prat, C. & Esteves, M. 2010. Drivers of<br />

erosion and suspended sediment transport in three headwater catchments of the Mexican Central Highlands.<br />

Geomorphology, 123: 243-256.<br />

EC. 2013. Cambio climático y degradación de los suelos en América Latina: escenarios, políticas y respuestas.<br />

Programa EUROCLIMA, Dirección General de Desarrollo y Cooperación-EuropeAid, Comisión Europea.<br />

Bruselas. 188 pp.<br />

Espinosa, J. & Molina, E. 1999. Acidez y encalado de los suelos. International Plant Nutrition Institute IPNI. 46<br />

pp.<br />

FAO. 1976. Prognosis of salinity and alkalinity. <strong>Soil</strong>s Bulletin No. 31 Rome, FAO. (Also available at http://www.<br />

fao.org/docrep/x5871e/x5871e 03.htm#TopOfPage)<br />

FAO. 2005. Global Forest <strong>Resources</strong> Assessment 2005: Progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO<br />

Forestry Paper 147. Rome, FAO Forestry Department. 320 pp.<br />

FAO. 2010. Proyecto Evaluación de la Degradación de la Tierra en zonas secas (Land Degradation Assessment in<br />

Drylands). LADA. (Also available at http://www.fao.org/nr/lada/)<br />

FAO. 2012. Directrices voluntarias sobre la Gobernanza responsable de la tenencia de la tierra, la pesca y los bisques<br />

en el contexto de la seguridad alimentaria nacional. CF. (Also available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801s/i2801s.<br />

pdf)<br />

Fassbender, H.& Bornemisza, E. 1987. Química de suelos con énfasis en suelos de América Latina. 2nd edition. San<br />

José Costa Rica, IICA. 420 pp.<br />

Ferraro, D.O. & Ghersa, C.M. 2007. Exploring the natural and human-induced effects on the assemblage of<br />

soil microarthropods communities in Argentina. Eur. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Biol., 109: 109–117.<br />

Franchini, J.C., Crispino, C.C., Souza, R.A., Torres, E. & Hungria, M. 2007. Microbiological parameters as<br />

indicators of soil quality under various soil management and crop rotation systems in southern Brazil. <strong>Soil</strong> and<br />

Tillage Research, 92(1–2): 18–29.<br />

Franzluebbers, A.J., Sawchik, J. & Taboada, M.A. 2014. Agronomic and environmental impacts of pasturecrop<br />

rotations in temperate North and South America. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 190: 18-26.<br />

Galdino, S., Vieira, L.M. & Pellegrin, L.A. (eds.). 2006. Impactos Ambientais e Socioeconômicos na Bacia do Rio<br />

Taquari – Pantanal. Corumbá, Embrapa Pantanal, MS. 356 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

392<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Gardi, C., Angelini, M., Barceló, S., Comerma, J., Cruz Gaistardo, C., Encina Rojas, A., Jones, A.,<br />

Krasilnikov, P., Mendonça-Santos, M.L., Montanarella, L., Muniz Ugarte, O., Schad, P., Vara Rodríguez,<br />

M.I. & Vargas, R. (eds). 2014. Atlas de suelos de América Latina y el Caribe. Luxembourg, Comisión Europea,<br />

Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea, L-2995. 176 pp.<br />

Garret, L.J. 1997. Challenges for the year 2020 in Latin America: nutrition and agriculture since 1970.<br />

Instituto internacional de investigaciones sobre políticas alimentarias. (IFPRI). Washington, DC. [in Spanish]<br />

Gobierno Argentino. 2014. Soybean oil: Argentina is the vendor leader in the region. Argentina, Portal<br />

Público de Noticias. (available at: http://www.argentina.ar/temas/economia-y-negocios/29800-aceite-de-sojaargentina-lidera-ventas-en-la-region)<br />

[in Spanish]<br />

Goldenberg, S.B., Landsea, C.W., Mestas –Nunez, A.M. & Gray, W.M. 2001. ‘The recent increase in<br />

Atlantic hurricane activity: Causes and implications.’ (El reciente incremento en la actividad de huracanes en el<br />

Atlántico: Causas e implicaciones). Science, 293: 474–479.<br />

González, M.S. 2008. Evaluación del uso agrícola de lodos de plantas de tratamiento de aguas servidas de la ciudad<br />

de Santiago de Chile. INIA.<br />

Grau, H.R. & Aide, M. 2008. Globalization and land-use transitions in Latin America. Ecology and Society,<br />

13(2): 16.<br />

Green, V.S., Stott, D.E., Cruz, J.C. & Curi, N. 2007. Tillage impacts on soil biological activity and aggregation<br />

in a Brazilian Cerrado Oxisol. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research, 92 (1–2): 114–121.<br />

Guimarães, L.R. 2013. Nutrient management challenges in Brazil and Latin America. The second global<br />

conference on Land-Ocean Connections (GLOC-2), Montego Bay, 3 October.<br />

Hansen, M.C, Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman,<br />

S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O. & Townshend, J.R.G.<br />

2013. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science, 342(6160): 850-853.<br />

Heinze, B. 2002. Importância da agricultura irrigada para o desenvolvimento da região nordeste do Brasil, Brasília<br />

- DF. Monografia, MBA, Ecobusiness Scholl, FVG. Publicações IICA/braulioheinze.pdf.<br />

Henríquez, C., Ortíz, O., Largaespada, K., Portuguéz, P., Vargas, M., Villalobos, P. & Gómez, D. 2011.<br />

Determinación de la resistencia a la penetración, al corte tangencial, densidad aparente y temperatura en un<br />

suelo cafetalero, Juan Viñas, Costa Rica. Agronomía Costarricense, 35(1): 175-184.<br />

Henríquez, C., Uribe, L., Valenciano, A. & Nogales, R. 2014. Actividad enzimática del suelo –<br />

Deshidrogenasa, Glucosidasa, Fosfatasas y Ureasa- Bajo diferentes cultivos. Agronomía Costarricense, 38(1): 43-<br />

54.<br />

Hincapié, E. & Ramírez, F. 2010. Riesgo de erosion en suelos de ladera de la zona cafetera. Avances Técnicos 400.<br />

Colombia, Cenicafé, Manizales. 8 pp.<br />

Hughes, R.F., Kauffman, J.B. & Jaramillo, V.J. 1999. Biomass, Carbon, and nutrient dynamics of secondary<br />

forest in a humid tropical region of México. Ecology, 80: 1892–1907.<br />

IGT-AMA. 2014. Mapas CSMB Cartografia del Sistema de Monitoreo Biofísico. Instituto de Geografía tropical y<br />

la Agencia de medio Ambiente. La Habana. (Also available at http://www.infogeo.cu/index.php/ct-menu-item-2/<br />

monitoreo-biofisico/si-proyectos/17-proyectos/34-mapas-de-lada)<br />

INPE. 2010. Deforestation estimates in the Brazilian Amazon. Brazil São Jose dos Campos, SP, Instituto Nacional<br />

de Pesquisas Espaciais.<br />

INPE. 2013. Monitoring of the Brazilian Amazonian Forest by satélite, 2002-2012. Brazil São Jose dos Campos, SP,<br />

Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais.<br />

Instituto de Suelos. 2001. Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento y Conservación de Suelos. Cuba, La<br />

Habana, Agrinfor. 39 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

393<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects,<br />

by C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O.<br />

Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White, eds.<br />

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate<br />

Change. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press &USA, New York, NY. 1132 pp.<br />

Jantalia, C.P., Resck, D.V.S., Alves, B.J.R., Zotarelli, L., Urquiaga, S. & Boddey, R.M. 2007. Tillage effect<br />

on C stocks of a clayey Oxisol under a soybean-based cropo rotation in the Brasilian Cerrado region. <strong>Soil</strong> &<br />

Tillage Research, 95: 97-109.<br />

Jaramillo, V., Arahana, V. & Torres, M. 2014. Determination of the level of tolerance to salinity in in vitro<br />

conditions of the plants of tomate de árbol (Solanum betaceum) from different localities of the ecuatorian highlands. In<br />

C. Zambrano, ed.<br />

Jobbagy, E. & Jackson, R.B. 2004. Groundwater use and salinization with grassland afforestation. Global<br />

Change Biology, 10(8): 1299–1312.<br />

Kämpf, N., Curi, N. & Marques, J. 2009. Weathering and minerals in the soil. In Vander de Freitas Melo &<br />

Luis Alleoni, eds. Ing. Química e mineralogía do solo. Parte I. Conceitos básicos, pp. 333-379. Sociedad Brasileira<br />

de Ciência do solo. [in Portuguese]<br />

Laegreid, M., Bockman, O.C. & Kaarstad, E.O. 1999. Agriculture, Fertilizers and the Environment. Norks<br />

Hydro, CABI Publishing. 294 pp.<br />

Lal, R. 2005. Forest soils and carbon sequestration. Forest Ecology and Management. 220: 242-258.<br />

Lal, R. 2006. <strong>Soil</strong> Carbon Sequestration in Latin America. In: R. Lal, C.C. Cerri, M. Bernoux, J. Etcheverd &<br />

E. Cerri, eds. Carbon Sequestration in <strong>Soil</strong>s of Latin America, pp. 49-64. USA, New, York & London, Oxford, The<br />

Haworth Press, Inc.<br />

Lapinel, B., Rivero, R.E. & Cutié, V. 1993. La sequía en Cuba: Análisis del período 1931-1990 (inédito). Informe<br />

Científico-Técnico. Camagüey, Centro Meteorológico Territorial. 40 pp.<br />

Lavado, R.S. & Taboada, M.A. 2009. The Argentinean Pampas: A key region with a negative nutrient<br />

balance and soil degradation needs better nutrient management and conservation programs to sustain its<br />

future viability as a world agroresource. Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> and Water Conservation, 65: 150-153.<br />

Liniger, H.P., van Lynden, G., Nachtergaele, F., Schwilch, G. & Biancalani, R. 2011. Questionnaire for<br />

mapping land degradation and sustainable land management v 2.0. LADA Technical Report No 9. Rome, FAO.<br />

Malm, O. 1998. Gold Mining as a Source of Mercury Exposure in the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental<br />

Research, 77(2): 73–78.<br />

Milesi Delaye, L.A., Irizar, A.B., Andriulo, A.E. & Mary, B. 2013. Effect of Continuous Agriculture of<br />

Grassland <strong>Soil</strong>s of the Argentine Rolling Pampa on <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon and Nitrogen. Applied and Environmental<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Science, 10: 1-17.<br />

Miyake, S., Renouf, M., Peterson, A., McAlpine, C. & Smith, C. 2012. Land-use and environmental<br />

pressures resulting from current and future bioenergy crop expansion: A review. Journal of Rural Studies, 28(4):<br />

650-658.<br />

Mol, J.H., Ramlal, J.S., Lietar, C. & Verloo, M. 2001. Mercury Contamination in Freshwater, Estuarine,<br />

and Marine Fishes in Relation to Small-Scale Gold Mining in Suriname, South America. Environmental Research<br />

Section A., 86: 183-197.<br />

Moreira, L., Dos Santos Teixeira, A. & Galvão, L. 2014. Laboratory Salinization of Brazilian Alluvial <strong>Soil</strong>s<br />

and the Spectral Effects of Gypsum. Remote Sens., 6: 2647-2663.<br />

Nachtergaele, F.O., Petri, M. & Biancalani, R. 2011. Global Land Degradation Information System (GLADIS)<br />

manual v 1.0. LADA Technical Report No 17. Rome, FAO.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

394<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Nogueira, M.A., Albino, U.B., Brandão-Junior, O., Braun, G., Cruz, F.M., Dias, B.A., Duarte, R.T.D.,<br />

Gioppo, N.M.R., Menna, P., Orlandi, J.M., Raimam, M.P., Rampazo, L.G.M., Santos, M.A., Silva, M.E.Z.,<br />

Vieira, F.P., Torezan, J.M.D., Hungria, M. & Andrade, G. 2006. Promising indicators for assessment of<br />

agroecosystems alteration among natural, reforested and agricultural land use in southern Brazil. Agriculture,<br />

Ecosystems and Environment, 115(1–4): 237–247.<br />

Nosetto, M.D., Jobbágy, E.G., Brizuela, A.B. & Jackson, R.B. 2012. The hydrologic consequences of land<br />

cover change in central Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 154: 2–11.<br />

Nriaugu, J. 1994. Mercury pollution from the past mining of gold and silver in the Americas. Science of The<br />

Total Environment, 149(3): 167–181.<br />

Oldeman, L. R., van Engelen, V.W.P. & Pulles, J.H.M. 1991a. The extent of human-induced soil degradation.<br />

In L.R. Oldeman, R.T.A. Hakkeling & W.G. Sombroek, eds. World map of the status of humam-induced soil<br />

degradation: an explanatory note, pp. 27-33. Wageningen, International <strong>Soil</strong> Reference and Information Centre &<br />

Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme.<br />

Oldeman, L., Hakkeling, R. & Sombroek, W. 1991b. World Map of the status of human- induced soil degradation.<br />

Wageningen, GLASOD-ISRIC.<br />

Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V., Underwood, E.C. &<br />

Kassem, K.R. 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth A new global map of<br />

terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience, 51(11): 933-938.<br />

Ometo, J.P.H.B., Martinelli, L.A., Ballester, M.V., Gessner, A., Krusche, A.V., Victoria, R.L. & Williams,<br />

M. 2000. Effects of land use on water chemistry and macroinvertebrates in two streams of the Piracicaba river<br />

basin, south-east Brazil. Freshwater Biology, 44(2): 327–337.<br />

Pais, P.S.M., Dias Junior, M.C., Dias, A.C., Iori, P., Guimarães, P.T.G. & Santos, G.A. 2013. Load bearing<br />

capacity of a Red-Yellow Latosol cultivated with coffee plants subjected to different weed managements.<br />

Ciênc. agrotec., 37(2): 145-151.<br />

Palacios-Vélez, O. 2012. Problemas de drenaje y salinidad en los Distritos de Riego de México: Panorámica. México,<br />

Postgrado de Hidrociencias, Campus Montecillo del Colegio de Postgraduados en Ciencias Agrícolas<br />

Palm, C. & Sanchez, P. 1990 Decomposition and nutrient release patterns of the leaves of three tropical<br />

legumes. Biotropica, 22(4): 330-338.<br />

Paruelo, J.M., Guerschman, J.P. & Verón, S.R. 2005. Expansión agrícola y cambios en el uso del suelo.<br />

Revista Ciencia Hoy, 15(87): 14-23.<br />

Pengue, W. 2005. Transgenic crops in Argentina: The ecological and social debt. Bulletin of Science, Technology<br />

& Society, 25(4): 314-322.<br />

Pla, I. 1992. La Erodabilidad de los Andisoles en Latino América. Suelos Ecuatoriales, 22(1): 33-43.<br />

Pla, I. 1993. Erosión de suelos de ladera del trópico Andino y Centroamericano. In F. Munevar, ed. Manejo<br />

Integrado de Recursos Naturales en Ecosistemas Tropicales para una Agricultura Sostenible, pp. 21-36. Colombia, Sta<br />

Fe de Bogotá, ICA.<br />

Pla, I. 1996a. Degradación de suelos en zonas de ladera de América Latina. In F. Bertsch & C. Monreal, eds. El<br />

Uso Sostenible del Suelo en Zonas de Ladera: El Papel Esencial de los Sistemas de Labranza Conservacionista, pp. 28-49.<br />

Costa Rica, San Jose, FAO-MAG.<br />

Pla, I. 1996b. Sistemas y prácticas de conservación de suelos y aguas. In Planificación y Manejo Integrado de<br />

Cuencas Hidrográficas en Zonas Áridas y Semiáridas de América Latina, pp. 131-160. Chile, Santiago de Chile, FAO-<br />

PNUMA.<br />

Pla, I. 2003. Erosion research in Latin-America. In D. Gabriels & W. Cornelius, ed. 25Years of Assessment of<br />

Erosion, pp. 19-27. Bélgica, Gent, Univ. of Gent.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

395<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Pla, I. 2011. Evaluación y Modelización Hidrológica para el Diagnóstico y Prevención de “Desastres Naturales”.<br />

Gestión y Ambiente, 14(3): 17-22.<br />

PNUMA-CEPAL. 2010. Gráficos Vitales de Cambio Climático para América Latina y El Caribe. Santiago de Chile,<br />

CEPAL.<br />

Prego, A.J., Barnes, H.R. & Battioli, M.C. 1988. Environmental degradation in Argentina: soil, water,<br />

vegetation, fauna. Fundacion para la Educacion, la Ciencia y la Cultura (FECIC). Centro para la Promocion de<br />

la Conservacion del Suelo y del Agua (PROSA), Buenos Aires. 504 pp. [in Spanish]<br />

Restrepo, J.D., Kjerfve, B., Hermelin, M. & Restrepo, J.C. 2006. Factors controlling sediment yield in a<br />

major South American drainage basin: the Magdalena River, Colombia. Journal of Hydrology, 316: 213–232.<br />

Romaniuk, R., Giuffré, L., Costantini, A., Bartoloni, N. & Nannipieri, P. 2012. A comparison of indexing<br />

methods to evaluate quality of soils: the role of soil microbiological properties. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 49(8): 733-741.<br />

SAGyP-CFA. 1995. El deterioro de las tierras en la República Argentina. Alerta Amarillo. Secretaría de Agricultura,<br />

Ganadería y Pesca & Consejo Federal Agropecuario. 287 pp.<br />

Sainz Rozas, H., Echeverria, H. & Angelini, H. 2012. Available phosphorus in agricultural soils of the pampa<br />

and extra-pampas regions of Argentina. RIA, Revista de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, 38: 33-39.<br />

Sainz Rozas, H.R., Echeverria, H.E. & Angelini, H.P. 2011 Organic carbon and pH levels in agricultural soils<br />

of the pampa and extra-pampean regions of Argentina. Ciencia del Suelo, 29: 29-37.<br />

Sánchez, P. 1981. Suelos del trópico. Características y manejo. Costa Rica, San José, Instituto Interamericano de<br />

cooperación para la agricultura IICA. 634 pp.<br />

Santayana, S. 2012. Problemas de drenaje y salinidad en la costa peruana. XI Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería<br />

Agrícola. Perú, Lima.<br />

Sasal, M.C., Andriulo, A. & Taboada, M.A. 2006. <strong>Soil</strong> porosity characteristics on water dynamics under<br />

direct drilling in Argiudolls of the Argentinean Rolling Pampas. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research, 87: 9-18.<br />

Satorre, E.H. 2005. Cambios tecnológicos en la agricultura Argentina actual. Revista Ciencia Hoy, 15(87):<br />

24-31.<br />

Sicardi, M., Garcıa-Préchac, F. & Frioni, L. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> microbial indicators sensitive to land use conversion<br />

from pastures to commercial Eucalyptus grandis (Hill ex Maiden) plantations in Uruguay. Applied <strong>Soil</strong> Ecology,<br />

27(2): 125–133.<br />

SIIA. 2015. Integrated system of agricultural information. Presidencia de la Nación, Ministerio de Agricultura,<br />

Ganadería y Pesca. (Also available at: http://www.siia.gov.ar/) [in Spanish]<br />

Silveira, K., Ribeiro, M., De Oliveira, L., Heck, R. & Silveira, R. 2008. Gypsum-saturated water to reclaim<br />

alluvial saline sodic and sodic soils. Sci. agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), 65(1): 69-76.<br />

Sisti, C.P.J. , dos Santos, H.P., Kochhann, R.A. , Alves, B.J.R. , Urquiaga, S. & Boddey, R.M. 2004.<br />

Change in carbon and nitrogen stocks in soil under 13years of conventional or zero tillage in southern Brazil.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> & Tillage Research, 76: 39-58.<br />

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F., Rice, C.,<br />

Scholes, B. & Sirotenko, O. 2007. Agriculture. In B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer,<br />

eds. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the<br />

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press & USA, New York,<br />

NY.<br />

Sousa, D.M. 2011. Solo: Recurso fundamental para o desenvolvimento da Agricultura na Savana tropical. EMBRAPA-<br />

Cerrados. XIX Congreso Venezolano de la Ciencia del Suelo.Calabozo, Noviembre.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

396<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Spavorek, G., Bemdes, G., Barreto, A.G. & Klug, L. 2012. The revision of the Brazilian Forest Act: increased<br />

deforestation or a historic step towards balancing agricultural development and nature conservation? Environ.<br />

Sci. Policy, 16: 65-72.<br />

Steinbach, H.S. & Álvarez, R. 2006. Changes in soil organic carbon contents and nitrous oxide emissions<br />

after introduction of no-till in Pampean agroecosystems. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35: 3-13.<br />

Studdert, G.A.., Echeverría, H.E. & Casanovas, E.M. 1997. Crop-pasture rotation for sustaining the quality<br />

and productivity of a Typic Argiudoll. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America Journal, 61(5): 1466-1472.<br />

Szabolcs, I. 1979. Review on Research of Salt Affected <strong>Soil</strong>s. Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Research XV. Paris, UNESCO.<br />

Taboada, M.A., Micucci, F.G., Cosentino, D.J. & Lavado, R.S. 1998. Comparison of compaction induced by<br />

conventional and zero tillage in two soils of the Rolling Pampa of Argentina. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research, 49: 57–63.<br />

Taboada, M.A., Rubio, G. & Chaneton, E.J. 2011. Grazing impacts on soil physical, chemical and ecological<br />

properties in forage production systems. In J.L. Hatfield & T.J. Sauer, ed. <strong>Soil</strong> management: building a stable base<br />

for agriculture, p. 301-320. American Society of Agronomy & <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America.<br />

Torri, S.I. & Lavado, R.S. 2008. Dynamics of Cd, Cu and Pb added to soil through different kinds of sewage<br />

sludge. Waste Management, 28(5): 821-832.<br />

UNDP. 2000. A Guide to World <strong>Resources</strong>. United Nation Development Programme. Washington, DC, World<br />

<strong>Resources</strong> Institute. 389 pp.<br />

UNFCCC. 2013. Non-Annex I national communications. (Also available at http://unfccc.int/national_reports/nonannex_i_natcom/items/2979.php)<br />

Urquiaga, S, Alves, B.J.R.J, Antalia, C.P., Martins, M.R. & Boddey, R.M. 2014. A cultura de milho e seu impacto<br />

nas emissões de GEE no Brasil. In Eficiência nas cadeias produtivas e o abastecimento global. pp. 61-71.1 edition. Sete<br />

Lagoas, MG, ABMS.<br />

Urquiaga, S., Xavier, R.P., de Morais, R.F. , Batista, R.B., Schultz, N., Leite, J.M., Maia e Sá, J., Barbosa,<br />

K.P., de Resende, A.S., Alves, B.J.R & Boddey, R. 2012. Evidence from field nitrogen balance and 15N natural<br />

abundance data for the contribution of biological N 2<br />

fixation to Brazilian sugarcane varieties. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>,<br />

356: 5 – 21.<br />

van der Werf, G.R., Randerson, J.T., Giglio, L., Collatz, G.J., Mu, M., Kasibhatla, P.S., Morton, D.C.,<br />

DeFries, R.S., Jin, Y. & van Leeuwen, T.T. 2010. Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation,<br />

savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997– 2009). Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10: 11707–11735.<br />

Vargas, R., Allen, M.F. & Allen, E.B. 2008. Biomass and carbon accumulation in a fire chronosequence of a<br />

seasonally dry tropical forest. Global Change Biology, 14: 109-124.<br />

Vargas, R., Yepez, E.A., Andrade, J.L., Angeles, G., Arredondo, T., Castellanos, A.E., Delgado-Balbuena,<br />

J., Garatuza-Payan, J., Gonzales del Castillo, E., Oechel, W., Rodriguez, J.C., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A.,<br />

Velasco, E., Vivoni, E.R. & Watts, C. 2013. Progress and opportunities for monitoring greenhouse gases fluxes<br />

in Mexican ecosystems: the MexFlux network. Atmosfera, 26: 325-336.<br />

Viglizzo, E.F. & Frank, F.C. 2006. Land-use options for Del Plata Basin in South America: Tradeoffs analysis<br />

based on ecosystem service provision. Ecol. Econ., 57: 140-151.<br />

Viglizzo, E.F. & Jobbágy, E. (eds.). 2010. Expansión de la frontera agropecuaria en Argentina y su impacto<br />

ecológico-ambiental. Buenos Aires, Ediciones INTA.<br />

Villafañe, R. 1995. Detección de suelos afectados por sales en áreas bajo riego de los estados Portuguesa,<br />

Barinas y Lara, Venezuela. Agronomía Tropical, 54(3): 445-456.<br />

White, D., Arca, M., Alegre, J., Yanggen, D., Labarta, R., Weber, J.C., Sotelo, S. & Vidaurre, H. 2005.<br />

The Peruvian Amazon: Development Imperatives and challenges. In C.A. Palm, S.A. Vosti, P.A. Sanchez & P.J.<br />

Ericksen, eds. Slash and Burn: the search for alternatives, pp. 332-354. USA, New York, Columbia University Presss.<br />

463 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

397<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


Willer, H. & Lukas K. (eds.). 2009. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2009. FIBL-<br />

IFOAM Report. Bonn, IFOAM,, Frick, FiBL &, Geneva, ITC.<br />

World Bank. 2007. Republic of Peru environmental sustainability: a key to poverty reduction in Peru. Washington,<br />

DC. (Also available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2007/06/7910058/republic-peru-environmentalsustainability-key-poverty-reduction-peru.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

398<br />

in Latin America and the Caribbean


13 | Regional Assessment<br />

of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes in the Near East<br />

and North Africa<br />

Regional Coordinator: Seyed Kazem Alavi Panah (ITPS/Iran)<br />

Regional Lead Author: Mubarak Abdelrahman Abdalla (Sudan)<br />

Contributing Authors: Hedi Hamrouni (Tunisia), Abdullah AlShankiti (ITPS/Saudi Arabia), Elsiddig Ahmed<br />

El Mustafa El Sheikh (ITPS/Sudan), Ali Akbar Noroozi (Iran).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

399<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


13.1 | Introduction<br />

The Near East and North Africa (NENA) region includes Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Sudan,<br />

South Sudan, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, United Arab<br />

Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran. The region has a land area of approximately 14.9 million km 2 , nearly all of<br />

which is hyper-arid, arid or semi-arid. The region faces three climatic constraints: aridity, recurrent drought,<br />

and desertification, the latter also in part human induced. South Sudan is the only country in the region which<br />

falls within the dry sub-humid tropical zone. Large areas of Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the<br />

United Arab Emirates are entirely desert (FAO, 2013a).<br />

The soils of the region are broadly as follows:<br />

• The soils of the Maghreb region (Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Algeria) fall into three broad divisions: (i)<br />

along the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts productive Kastanozems (Xerolls) and Luvisols (Alfisols)<br />

occur (SEDENOT, 1999; MADRPM, 2000; Halitima, 1988); (ii) Leptosols (lithic subgroups) and Cambisols<br />

(Inceptisols) are found in the Atlas Mountains away from the coast (Yigini, Panagos and Montanarella,<br />

2013); and (iii) Calcisols (Calcids), Gypsisols (Gypsids), Leptosols and Cambisols are found in the southern<br />

part (Jones et al., 2013).<br />

• Vertisols, Arenosols (Psamments), Fluvisols (Fluvents), Calcisols and Gypsisols (Aridisols) are the<br />

dominants soils in Sudan and Egypt.<br />

• In the Mashreq region (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine), the soils of the valleys are Arenosols<br />

(Psamments) and Fluvisols (Fluvents). In the highlands, steppe and desert regions, the main orders are<br />

Calcisols (Calcids) and Cambisols (Aridisols), Arenosols (Psamments) and Leptosols (Lithic subgroups),<br />

and Vertisols which are calcareous in the subsoil horizons.<br />

• In the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf (Oman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab<br />

Emirates, Yemen, Iran and Qatar), there are alluvial soils rich in silt and desert soils, and sandy soils<br />

poor in organic carbon but in which evaporite Tertiary Formations played an important role in the<br />

formation of contemporary minerals (Abbaslou et al., 2013).<br />

Agriculture is an important source of income for many countries in the region. Arable land constitutes only<br />

6.8 percent of the total land area, while about 26 percent is used for pasture and about 7 percent is under forest<br />

(Hamdallah, 1997). Based on the type of agriculture practiced, Dregne and Chou (1992) divided the productive<br />

land in the region into: irrigated land (0.7 percent, 8.5 million ha); rainfed (2.2 percent, 27.7 million ha);<br />

rangelands (40 percent, 495.6 million ha); and extremely arid land (57 percent, 705.2 million ha). Proportions<br />

vary considerably by country. Productive lands represent 30 percent of the total area in Syria and Lebanon,<br />

but only 3 percent in Egypt, Algeria and Sudan, and only 0.5 percent in Saudi Arabia, Oman and Mauritania<br />

(Mamdouh Nasr, 1999).<br />

Natural resource degradation, especially where agriculture is practiced, is a real threat in all countries of the<br />

region and remains a major limitation to the reliable supply of food. In most countries, salinization, water and<br />

wind erosion, loss of vegetation cover, soil physical degradation (including compaction and surface crusting)<br />

are the main threats to the soil’s capacity to provide ecosystem services. The expansion of agriculture into<br />

marginal lands has greatly aggravated water erosion and consequently soil degradation. In almost all countries<br />

in the region, extreme climatic conditions, overgrazing, unsuitable cropping patterns and accumulation of<br />

salts have rendered large areas of land unproductive (Abahussain et al., 2002).<br />

Mamdouh Nasr (1999) reported that rainfed cropland represents only 3 percent (about 30 million ha) of the region’s<br />

total drylands, yet about 22 million ha of this total (73 percent of the cropland area) are estimated by UNDCPAC to be<br />

degraded. The extent of degradation of rainfed cropland is greatest in the countries of northern Africa: Algeria (93<br />

percent), Morocco (69 percent), Tunisia (69 percent) and, exceptionally, Egypt (10 percent). The eastern sub-region<br />

(Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Sudan and Syria) is the part of the NENA region most affected by land degradation (FAO,<br />

2004). The extent of degradation in the countries of the Middle East - Iraq (72 percent), Syria (70 percent) - is higher<br />

than that in the Gulf Countries: Oman (50 percent), Qatar (25 percent), and Bahrain (20 percent).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

400<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


The Arab Centre for the Study of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (CAMRE/UNEP/ACSAD, 1996) has estimated that,<br />

overall, land degradation affects approximately 49 percent of farmland in the eastern sub-region; 29 percent<br />

in the Nile Valley of Egypt; 17 percent in North Africa; and 9 percent in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries.<br />

More than one process of degradation can occur in a single farming system. For example, degradation is<br />

serious in one of the largest countries in the region, Sudan, a country with high agricultural potential (Ayoub,<br />

1998). In Sudan, the 46 million ha lying in the semi-arid zone, where mixed farming of both animal husbandry<br />

and rainfed arable cropping are practiced, have experienced intensive soil degradation over the last 35years,<br />

affecting production of field crops, gum Arabic, and livestock products.<br />

In North Africa, causes of soil degradation are divided between overgrazing (68 percent), over-cultivation<br />

(21 percent), deforestation (10.5 percent) and overexploitation of natural vegetation for about 0.5 percent<br />

(Thomas and Middelton, 1994). In the newly created country of the region, South Sudan, there are very limited<br />

studies on land degradation. However, there are indications that land use changes have impaired the quality<br />

of the land in many places (Dima, 2006).<br />

Land degradation in certain areas may affect adjacent areas. For example, degradation in rangelands where<br />

rainfall is low has negative effects on resources of rainfed farming areas. This is also one of the regions most<br />

vulnerable to climate change (FAO, 2011). Agriculture faces major losses due to land degradation, and yields<br />

are expected to decrease by the year 2050: rice yields by 11 percent; soybean yields by 28 percent; maize yields<br />

by 19 percent; and barley grain yields by 20 percent (FAO, 1994). Recent studies on the economic cost of land<br />

degradation in the region were reported by Hussein et al. (2008); they were estimated at US$9 billion yr -1 (2.1-<br />

7.4 percent of GDP).<br />

This chapter will discuss the main soil threats - erosion by water and wind, salinity/sodicity, soil<br />

contamination, and organic C depletion. Major causes of soil degradation in the region are due to many<br />

factors, including: (i) excessive irrigation and poor drainage; (ii) wind and water erosion; (iii) waterlogging;<br />

(iv) deteriorated soil fertility; (v) over-grazing; (vi) loss of soil cover; (vii) land mis-management; (viii) sand<br />

encroachment; and (ix) overuse of herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers (FAO, 2004).<br />

Data correlating land degradation with yields are scarce at the global level. However, recent studies (2000-<br />

2010) show that land losses due to degradation in North Africa are the highest among selected countries<br />

worldwide, and that this has resulted in a considerable food gap of 0.6×106 metric tonnes (Wiebe, 2003).<br />

There have been many efforts to tackle the issue of land degradation. Experience has shown that a key factor<br />

for success is political will. In this respect, the 21 st summit of African leaders in 2013 urged member states to<br />

place land degradation at the centre of the debate on the post-2015 development agenda, and to recognize it<br />

as one of the sustainable development goals. This is particularly important for NENA because the agricultural<br />

sector in the region contributes about 10 percent of the region’s GDP, but is characterized by an exceptionally<br />

fragile and vulnerable resource base.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

401<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


13.2 | Major land use systems in the Near East and North Africa<br />

Land use systems in the region have been identified and broadly delimited based on a range of characteristics<br />

(Nachtergaele and Petri, 2011). Their geographical location is indicated in Figure 13.1. They can be combined<br />

in three major systems: irrigated crop based, rainfed mixed and livestock based. These systems are briefly<br />

discussed below (Dixon and Gulliver, 2001).<br />

Irrigated land use systems<br />

Given the arid and semiarid nature of much of North Africa and the Near East, irrigated farming has always<br />

been of crucial importance in generating much of the region's agricultural output. The ‘irrigated farming<br />

system’ in NENA contains both large and small-scale irrigation schemes with high population densities and<br />

generally very small farm sizes. The prevalence of poverty within both large and small segments of the system<br />

is moderate.<br />

Traditionally, areas within the large scale irrigation sub-system have been linked primarily to perennial<br />

surface water resources, such as the Nile (Egypt and Sudan) and Euphrates (Syria and Iraq). However, the<br />

intensification of traditional karez or qanat systems has also led to the evolution of large-scale irrigated<br />

areas where sub-surface water is abundant. More recently, the availability of deep drilling and pumping<br />

technologies has permitted the development of new areas drawing entirely on subterranean aquifers. Largescale<br />

schemes are found across all zones of the region and include high-value cash and export cropping and<br />

intensive vegetable and fruit cropping.<br />

Patterns of water use vary greatly but throughout the region inappropriate policies on water pricing and<br />

centralised management systems have meant that water is seldom used efficiently. Significant economic and<br />

environmental externalities have arisen through excessive utilisation of non-recharged aquifers while, in a<br />

number of cases, the excessive application of irrigation water has resulted in rising groundwater tables, soil<br />

salinization and sodification problems.<br />

The small scale irrigated sub-system also occurs widely across the region. Although not as important as the<br />

larger schemes in terms of numbers of people involved or in the amount of food and other crops produced, it<br />

is a significant element in the survival of many people in arid and remote mountain areas. This sub-system,<br />

examples of which are sometimes of considerable antiquity, typically develops along small perennial streams<br />

and at oases, or where flood and spate irrigation is feasible. It sometimes also draws on shallow aquifers<br />

and boreholes, although these rarely penetrate to the depths seen in the large schemes. The major crops<br />

grown within small-scale irrigation areas are mixed cereals, fodder and vegetables. These areas also provide<br />

important focal points for socio-economic activity, but intense local competition for limited water resources<br />

between small rural farmers and other users is becoming increasingly evident.<br />

Rainfed mixed crop and livestock land use systems<br />

The rainfed agricultural and livestock systems are the most important land use system in the region in<br />

terms of population engaged in agriculture. However, as these systems are practiced on less than 10 percent<br />

of the land area, population densities in these farming areas are moderately high. These systems covers two<br />

sometimes overlapping segments. The first segment occurs on high terraces and is dominated by rainfed<br />

cereal and legume cropping, with tree crops, fruits and olives on terraces, together with vines. In Yemen,<br />

higher reaches are reserved for qat trees and coffee, which are traditionally the most important tree crops in<br />

Yemen’s mountain regions. The second segment is based primarily on the raising of livestock (mostly sheep)<br />

on communally managed lands. In some cases, both the livestock and the people who control them are<br />

transhumant, migrating seasonally between lowland steppes in the more humid winter season and upland<br />

areas in the dry season. This type of livestock keeping is still important in Iran and Morocco.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

402<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Poverty within this system is extensive, as markets are often distant, infrastructure is poorly developed<br />

and the degradation of natural resources is a serious problem. In the lowlands where rainfed production is<br />

feasible, an increasing area is now benefiting from the availability of new drilling and pumping technologies,<br />

which have made it possible to use supplementary winter irrigation on wheat and full irrigation on summer<br />

cash crops. There is some dry season grazing of sheep migrating from the steppe areas.<br />

The more humid areas (with 600 to 1000 mm annual rainfall) that occur in the Caspian and Mediterranean<br />

coastal areas are characterised by tree crops (olives and fruit), melons and grapes. There is also some protected<br />

cropping with supplementary irrigation for potatoes, vegetables and flowers. Common crops are wheat,<br />

barley, chickpeas, lentils and fodder crops. Poverty in these more humid areas is moderate, but would be<br />

higher without extensive off-farm income from seasonal labour migration.<br />

Figure 13.1 Land use systems in the Near East and North Africa. Source: FAO, 2010.<br />

Livestock-based land use systems in sparsely vegetated areasù<br />

The pastoral land use system, mainly involving sheep and goats but also with some cattle and camels, is<br />

practiced on large areas of semiarid steppe lands, and is characterised by low population densities, with more<br />

densely populated areas around irrigated settlements. There are irrigated croplands scattered throughout the<br />

system, thus boosting the agricultural population – and helping to support a cattle population. Strong linkages<br />

exist to other farming systems through the movement of stock, both through seasonal grazing of herds in<br />

more humid areas and through the sale of animals to large feedlots located around urban areas. Seasonal<br />

migration, which is particularly important as a risk minimisation measure, depends on the availability of<br />

grass, water and crop residues in neighbouring arable systems. Nowadays, pastoral herds are often partially<br />

controlled and financed by urban capital. Where water is available, small areas of crop production have been<br />

developed to supplement the diets and income of pastoral families. However, such sites are few and poverty<br />

within the system is extensive.<br />

The sparse (arid) land use system covers more than 60 percent of the region and includes vast desert zones.<br />

People are concentrated in oases and on a number of irrigation schemes (notably in Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco<br />

and Libya). Part of the land is irrigated and utilised for the production of dates, other palms, fodder and<br />

vegetables. Pastoralists within this system also raise camels, sheep and goats. Following scattered storms<br />

and in good seasons, the system provides opportunistic grazing for the herds of pastoralists. The boundary<br />

between pastoral grazing and sparse agriculture systems is indistinct and depends on climatic conditions.<br />

Poverty within this system is generally low as population pressure is limited.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

403<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


13.3 | Major threats to soils in the region<br />

13.3.1 | Erosion<br />

Water erosion<br />

Water erosion is predominant in the part of the region which has sloping lands and where rainfed agriculture<br />

is practiced, although it may also occur in gently sloping areas. The degree of water erosion depends on the<br />

intensity and duration of the rainstorms, often enhanced by the terrain attributes and land use practices,<br />

particularly where these have reduced land cover. Water erosion results in the removal of fertile soil and in the<br />

reduction of irrigation efficiency and storage capacity. Considerable volumes of soil may be lost. Based on the<br />

GLASOD survey quoted by Abahussain et al. (2002), the total area affected by water erosion in NENA has been<br />

estimated at about 41 million ha. However, the extent varies significantly by country (Table 13.1.).<br />

Country Area Country Area Country Area<br />

Algeria 3 900 Lebanon 65 Sudan 17 300<br />

Bahrain 0 Libya 1 300 South Sudan n.d.<br />

Egypt Negligible Morocco 3 600 Syria 1 200<br />

Iran 1 70 000 Oman 2 800 Tunisia 3 800<br />

Iraq 1 150 Palestine n.d.<br />

United Arab<br />

Emirates<br />

0<br />

Jordan 330 Qatar 0 Yemen 5 600<br />

Kuwait 0 Saudi Arabia 200<br />

Table 13.1 Land degradation caused by water erosion in the NENA region (1000 ha)<br />

Source: Abahussain et al., 2002.<br />

1 Azimzadeh et al., 2008<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

404<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Wind erosion<br />

A review conducted by Abahussain et al. (2002) indicated that more than half of the total area in the<br />

region received annual rainfall of less than 150 mm. Consequently, large areas are without plant cover, or the<br />

cover is very sparse. This situation is aggravated further by high land-use pressure, both from human and<br />

animals, which ultimately causes severe topsoil disturbance. The resulting wind erosion is the most common<br />

environmental problem in the region and accounts for approximately 60 percent (135 million ha) of soil<br />

degradation. Countries differ in the extent they are affected, with Saudi Arabia the most affected (Table 13.2).<br />

Wind erosion has resulted in detrimental effects on land quality by removing the fertile top soils. In addition,<br />

the accumulation of eroded materials in irrigation canals, agricultural fields (sand encroachment) and water<br />

harvesting points affects the cropped areas in the region severely.<br />

Country Area Country Area Country Area<br />

Algeria 12 000 Lebanon Sudan 71 000<br />

Bahrain n.d. Libya 24 000 South Sudan n.d.<br />

Egypt 1 400 Morocco 600 Syria 3 000<br />

Iran 1 20 000 Oman 4 000 Tunisia 4 000<br />

Iraq 3 000 Palestine n.d.<br />

United Arab<br />

Emirates<br />

1 100<br />

Jordan 3 000 Qatar 200 Yemen 6 000<br />

Kuwait 300 Saudi Arabia 50 000<br />

Table 13.2 <strong>Soil</strong> degradation caused by wind erosion in the NENA region (1000 ha).<br />

Source: Abahussain et al., (2002 ).<br />

1 Azimzadeh et al., 2008<br />

An example of the problems is provided by the largest irrigated scheme in the world – the Gezira scheme<br />

in Sudan – which has been badly affected by sand encroaching from surrounding areas. One study found that<br />

over the last decade, wind erosion has decreased the soil level outside the scheme by 10 cm, whereas soil<br />

depth increased inside the scheme by 30 cm - any increase in level beyond 20 cm prevents irrigation water<br />

flow. Inside the scheme, the topsoil texture has changed from clayey to more sandy. Dune displacement in<br />

the scheme was about 3-5 meters month -1 during the season of active sand movement (Al-Amin, 1999). This<br />

situation has forced famers to take considerable land out of production because of problems irrigating, with<br />

sand filling the irrigation canals and altering slopes (Mohammed, Stigter and Adam, 1995).<br />

The continental sands of Kordofan and Darfur (Sudan) which support the world’s major source of gum Arabic<br />

(Acacia senegal L.) encounter severe wind erosion due to overgrazing and mismanagement, which endangers<br />

the dominance of the species in the area. Omar et al. (1998) also gave the example of sand encroachment into<br />

the cultivated areas of south Kuwait that has forced famers to take 35 percent of their total cultivable land<br />

out of production. Water and wind erosion are also prevalent in the western area of Libya (Jifara Plain and<br />

Jebal Naffusah) where agricultural development is dominant, and in El-Witia area in the southwestern Jifara<br />

Plain as observed by the Remote Sensing Center in Tripoli (Ben-Mahmoud, Mansur and AL-Gomati, 2000).<br />

For example, the area of fertile cultivated soils in El-Witia classified as class 1 has decreased (1986 to 1996) from<br />

66 000 to 44 900 ha (a 31 percent reduction), whereas the area of soils low in fertility has increased from 97<br />

000 to 134 000 ha (a 38 percent increase). In addition, the area covered with sand dunes has increased from<br />

32 000 to 104 000 ha (a 52 percent increase).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

405<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


The Nile Valley system comprising around 2.63 million ha represents the most fertile lands in Egypt -<br />

and probably in the whole region. However, wind erosion and salinity have degraded the soil resource<br />

(El-Khole i, 2012). Sand encroachment and mobile dunes are now estimated to cover more than 16 percent of<br />

the total area of Egypt. These conditions have led to active sand encroachment on the fringes of the cultivated<br />

areas in most areas of the country. An estimated area of 0.76 million ha has been reported to be affected by<br />

sand encroachment and active dunes, causing reduction in productivity of as much as 25 percent. The annual<br />

soil loss was estimated to be about 1.0 million ha.<br />

In Jordan, the flat topography (


13.3.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization/sodification<br />

Previous analyses (Hussein, 2001) revealed that 11.2 percent of the region’s soils are affected by various levels<br />

of soil salinization. Salt-affected soils vary in extent by country from 10-15 percent in Algeria to over 50 percent<br />

in Iraq. In the United Arab Emirates 33.6 percent of the area is salinized (EAD, 2009). About 50 percent of the<br />

reclaimed lands in the Euphrates plain in Iraq and Syria are seriously affected by salinization and waterlogging,<br />

and about 54 percent of the cultivated area in Saudi Arabia suffers from moderate salinization (CAMRE/UNEP/<br />

ACSAD, 1996). In Egypt, 93 percent of the cultivated lands are affected by salinization and waterlogging. The<br />

salt-affected area in Iran has increased from 15.5 Mha in 1960 to 18 Mha in 1980, to 23 Mha in 1990, and to more<br />

than 25 Mha today (Qadir, Qureshi and Cheraghi, 2008). In the United Arab Emirates, areas along the coast<br />

sabkha (salt marshes or lagoonal deposits) are considered highly degraded due to high levels (28.8 dS m -1 ) of<br />

salinity (Abdelfattah, 2012). In the coastal region of the Abu Dhabi Emirate, salinity is more than 200 dS m -1<br />

(Abdelfattah and Shahid, 2007).<br />

Saline and sodic soils are influenced by climate, agricultural practices, irrigation methods and policies related<br />

to land management (FAO, 1997). Low annual precipitation and high temperatures have also contributed to<br />

problems of salinity. In many countries of the region, where irrigation completely depends on groundwater,<br />

excessive irrigation has caused the formation of a shallow water table leading to increased salinization and<br />

degradation of the soil resource base. Yield reduction due to salinization and/or waterlogging amounts to 25<br />

percent in Egypt, and has led to a complete loss of productivity and abandoned agricultural lands in several<br />

countries. From the very scattered information on the extent and characteristics of salt-affected soils, salinity<br />

and sodicity in the region is rapidly increasing, both in irrigated and non-irrigated areas. Salinity, sodicity or the<br />

combination of both in some countries of the region are seriously affecting productive areas such as the Nile<br />

Delta of Egypt, and the Euphrates Valley in Iraq and Syria. The situation is further complicated by association<br />

with problems of waterlogging and high CaCO 3<br />

(up to 90 percent in United Arab Emirates, Al Barshamgi, 1997).<br />

13.3.6 | Loss of soil biodiversity<br />

The impact of soil degradation on biodiversity has received little attention in the countries of the region<br />

and there is little information available. Nevertheless, it is estimated that the region is home to one-tenth of<br />

the recorded plant species worldwide or about 25 000 species of plants. Of these, 25 percent are endemic to<br />

the region, 10 percent are of medicinal value, and many are a source of food. This indicates the importance of<br />

the region as a store of genetic resources (Abahussain et al., 2002). The lack of proper conservation practices,<br />

overgrazing of herds of ruminants, and deforestation for fuel are causing serious losses of plant cover and<br />

of valuable genetic resources, including below-ground biodiversity that is rarely quantified in this region.<br />

Proper and sustainable utilization of plant species which yield valuable products could boost incomes and<br />

help reduce poverty amongst nomads and local settled populations. However, thousands of plant species and<br />

varieties have disappeared, and a further 800 plant species are threatened with extinction (Al-Eisawi, 1998)<br />

and this loss of plant species is likely to result in changes in soil biodiversity.<br />

Iran is renowned for having one of the richest plant reserves in the world. The country has some 12 000<br />

species of plants, the majority of which are endemic (the Iranian National Action Programme). In the Elmalha<br />

area of Sudan, Bakheit (2011) studied the availability and distribution of famine foods and their role in times<br />

of famine. The study revealed endemic species that are considered as alternative foods in time of crisis but<br />

which are threatened by genetic erosion due to soil degradation. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation studies in South Sudan<br />

indicate the disappearance of palatable grasses such as Panicum turgidum and appearance of less palatable<br />

grasses such as Aristidia funiculata. The alien species now covers 40 percent of the pasture area, resulting in<br />

disappearance of many wild animals and decrease in biodiversity (Elfaig, Ibrahim and Jaafar, 2015). The study<br />

pointed out that drought, unsustainable use of forest and pasture, and increase in population pressure were<br />

the main causes of this environmental degradation.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

407<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


In Tunisia, decades of open grazing in the Bou Hdma National Park have caused severe loss of perennials and<br />

increased density of annuals (Belgacem, Tarhouni and Louhaichi, 2013). The study reported that grazing has<br />

reduced total plant cover by 38 percent and the contribution of perennials by 72 percent, while annuals were<br />

affected 100 percent. Overgrazing of rangelands generally causes replacement of highly palatable species with<br />

less desirable plants. Along the sea coast of Egypt, overgrazing during the period from 1974 to 1979 decreased<br />

the total density vegetation by more than 15 percent, mainly due to a decrease in some perennial herbs, while<br />

at the same time the total cover increased by about 38 percent, due mainly to perennial shrubs and succulents.<br />

Also in Egypt, vegetation on Mount Elba and the surrounding valleys has been reduced, and the resulting<br />

increased runoff threatens the diversified natural plant communities in the valleys. Some of these plant<br />

species are considered to be of high value as genetic resources as they are adapted to the desert conditions. In<br />

Lebanon biodiversity is threatened by many factors, chief among them are erosion, urban development and<br />

overgrazing resulting in dominance of xerophytes at the expense of other species (Zahreddine et al., 2007).<br />

Rising levels of poverty in the Ramallah area of Palestine have led to most farmers (83 percent) turning to the<br />

collection of medicinal plants for commercial use (Abu Hammad and Tumeizi, 2012).<br />

13.3.7 Waterlogging<br />

Waterlogging is a common constraint in irrigated areas of the region because of inadequate drainage. The<br />

problem is exacerbated by the dominant heavy textured alluvial soils and by seepage from the conveyance<br />

canals. <strong>Soil</strong> salinity, sodicity and water logging conditions have definite adverse impacts on soil productivity,<br />

estimated to be of the order of 30-35 percent of the potential productivity. In many areas of the old Nile Valley<br />

in Egypt, waterlogging has led to increased soil salinity and in certain areas to increased soil sodicity. In the<br />

Siwa oasis, for instance, the rate of water table rise during the period 1962–1977 was 1.33 cm yr -1 . Subsequently,<br />

the rate increased to 4.6 cm yr -1 and consequently subjected fertile soil to degradation (Misak, Abdel Baki and<br />

El-Hakim, 1997).<br />

Waterlogging has also become a serious problem on many farms in the United Arab Emirates due to poor<br />

drainage caused by the presence of a strong and thick hardpan and by excessive use of irrigation water. In<br />

addition, sea water intrusion in many areas reaches the surface and causes complete vegetation failure<br />

(Abdelfattah, Shahid and Othman, 2008). In Tunisia, of the 410 000 ha of irrigated area, about 87 000 ha (22<br />

percent) are affected in varying degrees by waterlogging. This hydromorphy affects most of the irrigated areas<br />

in the valley of Medjerda, from Ghardimaou up to Kalaat Andalous, and also affects the majority of oases.<br />

Overall, waterlogging affects 29-67 percent of irrigated areas in the north, 35 percent in the oases of Kibili and<br />

Toezure, and to a lesser extent the plains of Dorsal and irrigated areas of Gabes and Cap Bon (14-20 percent).<br />

It also affects some irrigated areas in the far north (Nefza, Sejnane and Mateur) and some irrigated areas of<br />

the centre.<br />

13.3.8 | Nutrient balance change<br />

The problem of nutrient-constrained agriculture is particularly acute in the region. It is associated with land<br />

use pressure and the consequent intensification of cropping systems and related soil degradation. Nutrient<br />

depletion is increasingly affecting land productivity in the region. In Sudan, continuous cultivation over nearly<br />

a century has decreased the base saturation percentage by 25 to 42 percent, indicating leaching with irrigation<br />

water of soluble anions and cations down the soil profile. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation due to nutrient depletion in Sudan<br />

is largely concentrated in the arid and semi-arid parts, particularly in southern Kordofan and Darfur, and in the<br />

dry sub-humid and moist sub-humid zones of south-western Sudan. This soil degradation is clearly related to<br />

agricultural activities and to deforestation.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

408<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


13.3.9 | Compaction<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction and crusting are the most serious forms of physical degradation affecting several irrigated<br />

areas in Libya, especially in sandy soils (Ben-Mahmoud, Mansur and Al-Gomati, 2000). Most soil compaction<br />

in the region is caused by tillage practices. For example in Iran continuous tilling over more than 50years<br />

has exposed surface soil to water run off due to an increase of up to 33 percent of soil bulk density. Surface<br />

compaction and crusting in the Arabian Peninsula, especially in the United Arab Emirates, is often due to land<br />

filling and levelling for infrastructure development. One study found that compaction increased from a bulk<br />

density of 1.15 to 1.66 g cm -3 (e.g. by 44 percent) and water infiltration dropped from 267 to 52 mm h -1 (e.g.<br />

by 81 percent). <strong>Soil</strong> compaction due to extensive tillage operations in the furrow slice (to 30 cm) is a major<br />

physical degradation in soils with high clay content where heavy mechanization is practiced. An example is<br />

documented (Biro et al., 2013) in rainfed farming systems of eastern Sudan, where three decades (1979-2009)<br />

of cultivation have increased compaction in the 0-5 and 5-15 cm depth from 1.33 and 1.42 g cm -3 in woodland and<br />

from 1.37 and 1.56 g cm -3 in fallow land to 1.56 and 1.72 g cm -3 (e.g. 16 percent). These levels of compaction have<br />

contributed to the general decline in productive potential in Sudan. This increase in compaction is comparable<br />

to the increase in bulk density of 13 percent documented in Jordan during the half century following conversion<br />

of forest land to cultivation of wheat and barley (Khresat et al., 2008).<br />

Military activities in the Al Salmi area on the western border of Kuwait have resulted in huge disturbance<br />

and caused soil and vegetation degradation (Al-Dousari, Misak and Shahid, 2000). The soil pores in the area<br />

have sealed and the infiltration rate has declined by 19.5 to 64.4 percent. Bulk density has increased by 26-33<br />

percent. In the Kabd area southwest of Kuwait City, pressure on land has resulted in compaction 20 percent<br />

higher in non-protected areas (bulk density of 1.8 g cm -3 ) than in protected areas (bulk density of 1.5 g cm -3 ;<br />

Misak et al., 2002). More generally, it has been estimated that a wide range of activities in Kuwait – grazing,<br />

quarrying, camping, and agricultural and animal production – have increased compaction by 12.9 to 23.4<br />

percent (Al-Awadhi, Al-Helal and Al-Enezi, 2005).<br />

13.3.10 | Sealing/capping<br />

The population of the region is approximately 6.2 percent of the world population. The region’s fragile<br />

ecosystem is endangered by one of the highest rates of population increase (3 percent) in the world. This puts<br />

enormous pressure on the capacity of land resources to provide goods and services. Encroachment of human<br />

settlements on scarce good quality agricultural land or in areas of adequate rainfall for agriculture occurs in<br />

many countries of the region, jeopardizing the role of land as a source of food. For example, in Egypt the net<br />

population density in towns is more than double the recognized maximum threshold of 360 ha -1 . During 1987-<br />

2007, the cultivated land in the Delta and Nile Valley did increase (to about 7 260 000 ha), but at the same time<br />

human settlement and land allocated to roads and irrigation canals and drains also increased (by 33.6 percent<br />

and 40 percent, respectively). As a result, recent studies (ESCWA, 2007) have shown that urban encroachment<br />

on highly fertile agricultural land in Egypt is emerging as a significant problem. For example, in El-Mahalla El-<br />

Kobra in the Gharbiya Governorate, the rate of urbanization from 1950 to 1987 was 10 percent annually, but<br />

from 1987 to 1995 the rate shot up to 33 percent ayear. In the 1950-1987 period, annual loss of agricultural land<br />

averaged 0.4 percent but it has subsequently risen considerably.<br />

Iran has the largest urbanized area in absolute terms in the region, followed by Saudi Arabia and Iraq, while<br />

the highest Urbanization Index is recorded for Gaza Strip, Bahrain, Palestine, Israel and Lebanon (Figure 13.2).<br />

Land sales also play an important role in the decline in the area of productive lands. In Jordan, the<br />

agricultural sector lost about 24.3 percent of its land during the period from 1997 to 2007. Rainfed cultivation,<br />

which represented 89 percent of total cultivated land in 1983, had lost 22.6 percent of its area by 1997.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

409<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


The main causes of soil problems in Jordan are: (i) improper farming practices, such as failure to use contour<br />

ploughing, or over-cultivation of the land; (ii) overgrazing; (iii) the conversion of rangelands to croplands in<br />

marginal areas where rainfall is insufficient to support crops in the long term; and (iv) uncontrolled expansion<br />

of urban and rural settlement at the cost of cultivable land.<br />

Urban populations are growing at 8 percent a year as opposed to just 1 percent in rural areas. In some<br />

countries of the region nearly the whole population is urban (e.g. Kuwait, 97 percent; Bahrain, 90 percent;<br />

Saudi Arabia, 83 percent; and United Arab Emirates, 84 percent). This high rate of urbanization has been<br />

accompanied by conversion of agricultural lands into urban areas. In Libya, over 25 percent of highly fertile<br />

lands have been taken over by the expansion of urban areas.<br />

The rapid urban population growth in the region increases the pressure on the natural resources (AOAD,<br />

2004). An example of dramatic urban expansion is found in Lebanon where a study by Darwish and Khawlie<br />

(2004) showed that during the period from 1962 to 2000, urban areas expanded by 208 percent while<br />

agricultural lands decreased by 35 percent. Much of the area converted to settlements was highly productive<br />

agricultural land on Fluvisols, Luvisols and Cambisols. Some 32 percent of class 1 (prime land) and 26 percent of<br />

class 2 land were converted into urban areas.<br />

Urban Area (SQKM)<br />

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000<br />

Saudi Arabia<br />

Kazakhstan<br />

Iraq<br />

Algeria<br />

Egypt<br />

Syria<br />

Morocco<br />

Libya<br />

Tunisia<br />

Israel<br />

Jordan<br />

Yemen<br />

Lebanon<br />

United Arab Emirates<br />

Kuwait<br />

Qatar<br />

West Bank<br />

Oman<br />

Bahrain<br />

Gaza Strip<br />

Western Sahara<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10 5 0<br />

Urbanization index (%)<br />

Figure 13.2 Extent of the urban areas and Urbanization Indexes for the Near East and North African countries. Source: Schneider,<br />

Friedl and Potere, 2009.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

410<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


13.4 | Major soil threats in the region<br />

Most of the land area of the region falls in the hyper-arid, arid and semi-arid climatic zones. About 87 percent<br />

of the region is predominantly desert. Major soil threats are: erosion, salinity/sodicity, pollution, and soil C<br />

loss. Main causes of soil degradation are: mismanagement coupled with poor policies; use of inappropriate<br />

technology; increased levels of traffic movements and road construction; industrial activities and mining;<br />

urban expansion; deforestation, overgrazing and inappropriate cultivation practices; and dumping of<br />

hazardous wastes.<br />

13.4.1 | Water and wind erosion<br />

Wind and water erosion in the region are due to a complex interaction of factors related to the resilience<br />

of land resources, land use and management, and socio-economic conditions. In this section, a link is made<br />

to the prevailing land uses in the different countries of the region, and the consequences and responses are<br />

discussed.<br />

Erosion caused by rainfed farming<br />

FAO (2004) reported that the annual soil loss in Iran due to erosion is 1-2 billion tonnes yr -1 , and that 76<br />

percent of the total area is under erosion threat. The area affected by wind erosion in Iran is about 12 percent<br />

of the total country surface area, six times the global rate of 1.8 percent. Other studies also report soil erosion<br />

as a serious problem in Iran, up to 20–30-times acceptable levels (Jalalian, Ghahsareh and Karimzadeh, 1996).<br />

In the north-west of Yazd in the Yazd-Ardakan plain, total soil mass transported was measured at 220.93 kg<br />

m -1 yr -1 and soil loss at 1.356 kg m -2 or about 13.56 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 causing topsoil C reduction at an average<br />

rate of 4 percent month -1 (Azimzadeh et al., 2008). The Iranian National Action Programme (NAP) reported in<br />

2004 a lack of access for farmers to inputs as an additional cause of soil erosion. This is due to various driving<br />

forces like poverty, lack of security and awareness, inadequate extension, absence of technical knowledge and<br />

financing.<br />

Elsewhere, driving forces for erosion processes were reported to be interrelated and to result in different<br />

degrees of degradation. In the El Bayadh region of Algeria, soils on limestone covers were classified as<br />

moderately vulnerable, vulnerable and highly vulnerable to degradation as a function of their vegetation cover<br />

(Belaroui, Djediai and Megdad, 2014). The study describes how the Algerian steppe has in recentyears become<br />

the scene of an ecological and climatic imbalance.<br />

More generally in the southern part of the Mediterranean region, overgrazing and cultivation of vulnerable<br />

land in arid and desert regions have induced severe wind erosion. In Morocco, erosion is a serious agroenvironmental<br />

threat and was found to cause soil losses generally between 12 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 and 14 tonnes ha−1<br />

yr−1. In some areas of the Rif Mountains these values reach 30 to 70 tonnes -1 ha -1 yr -1 (Benmansour et al., 2013).<br />

Using radioisotopes (137Cs), these authors found that the tillage process on sloping lands over the last halfcentury<br />

had resulted in significant translocation of soils within the field. A study by Dahan et al. (2012) found<br />

that soil erosion in Morocco is a result of several factors. The most important factors have been: increased<br />

population pressure on limited natural resources; over exploitation of forestry assets; removal of natural<br />

vegetation from sloping lands; overgrazing; cultivation of vulnerable lands in arid and desert regions; and<br />

inappropriate land management, mainly tillage practices. They also reported that water erosion accelerated<br />

by human intervention is the main cause in Morocco of soil degradation and of the deterioration of water<br />

quality that it entails. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion in Morocco affects up to 40 percent of its territory with the total annual soil<br />

loss evaluated at 100 million tonnes, equivalent to 50 million m 3 annual reduction in dam storage capacity.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

411<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


In El Bayadh region of Algeria, the Sirocco (a hot, dry wind blowing northwards from the Sahara) with a<br />

speed of 1.1 to 2.9 m s -1 is a dust-blowing wind which causes significant wind erosion (Belaroui, Djediai and<br />

Megdad, 2014). A recent study (Houyou et al., 2014) showed that 20 million ha of steppe lands faced a high<br />

risk of wind erosion due to low rainfall and poorly rooted vegetation on sandy soils. This area is threatened by<br />

yet more intensive erosion because of newly adopted government policies favouring extensive rainfed cereal<br />

cropping. The study showed that this decision has led to very high erosion rates (74.4 Mg ha -1 yr -1 ). Clearly this<br />

cropping system is unsustainable and the policy should be revised.<br />

In Tunisia, overall soil loss due to water erosion has been estimated to be equivalent to 23 000 ha yr -1 in<br />

the isohyets above 200 mm. In some areas of Syria, soil loss due to water erosion has been estimated to range<br />

from 10 to 60 kg ha -1 (under forest), from 200 to 2 550 kg ha -1 (under burned forest) and as high as 960 to 3 280<br />

kg ha -1 (under agricultural land). High population growth 1984-1999 (4.0 percent annually against a national<br />

average of 3.0 percent) in the village of Im Mial in the north-west of Syria led farmers to practice continuous<br />

rainfed barley production with no fallow or rotation (Nielsen and Zöbisch, 2001). This resulted in a very sparse<br />

vegetation and extensive wind erosion.<br />

Grazing and tillage practices generally contribute to vulnerability to water erosion. In one study in NENA,<br />

the highest soil loss was recorded in over-grazed mountains, which lost up to five times more soil than slopes<br />

under managed grazing (Shinjo et al., 2000). However, soil loss on tilled slopes can be one to four times that<br />

from grazed areas. Estimates of areas under serious water erosion in northern Iraq showed an increase from 12<br />

percent in 1954 (Gibbs, 1954) to around 22 percent in 1997 (Hussein et al., 1998), suggesting a rate of increase of<br />

0.2 percent yr -1 . The main reason was mismanagement of cropland and rangeland during the intervening four<br />

decades. In Yemen the surface runoff to the sea measured in some major wadis is estimated at 1430 million m -3<br />

yr -1 (Al-Hemiary, 1999).<br />

In Jordan, water and wind erosion are both problems. Water erosion in the more vulnerable areas of the<br />

country with annual rainfall more than 400 mm and a slope greater than 25 percent – occurs on just 2.5 percent<br />

of the total area of the country. However, water erosion also occurs in the Badia region with its very low rainfall.<br />

The Badia soils are subject to water erosion because they are bare and highly exposed to what rainfall there<br />

is. The consequent formation of a slowly permeable seal and crust has enhanced runoff and water erosion<br />

(Rawajfih, Khersat and Buck, 2005). In Palestine it has been demonstrated that soil conservation pays – net<br />

profit was found to 3.5 to 6 times higher than without conservation measures. However, farmers’ willingness<br />

to adopt conservation measures was influenced by other factors too, including knowledge and perception,<br />

land tenure, and the type of landscape (Abu Hammad and Bǿrresen, 2006).<br />

Early studies estimated the risk of water erosion in Lebanon to be 50–70 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 , but subsequently<br />

this has increased to 150 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 (Bou Kheir, Cerdan and Abdallah, 2006) and may be as high as 317<br />

tonnes ha -1 yr -1 . Some farmers in Lebanon are nonetheless reluctant to change their cultivation practices,<br />

particularly ploughing up and down slopes of more than 20 percent. Farmers are also expanding cultivation<br />

on steep slopes, even though they may be aware that this aggravates water erosion. They justify up and<br />

down ploughing as necessary for tractor performance, and steep lands are the only available land for<br />

extending cultivation (Zurayk et al., 2001). In general, human activities have been identified as causes of water<br />

erosion in Lebanon including: encroachment into agricultural land, cultivation of fragile soils, over-grazing,<br />

deforestation and overexploitation of woodland resources, uncontrolled use of fire for agricultural and forest<br />

clearing, unsustainable agricultural practices, poor irrigation practices and inefficient water use, and chaotic<br />

urban sprawl into fertile lands and forests (NAP, 2003).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

412<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


In Sudan, studies showed that in areas affected by water erosion, about 74 percent of respondent households<br />

are exposed to food shortages that are sometimes severe (Akuot Gareng Apiu Anyar, 2006). The expansion of<br />

mechanized rainfed agriculture (1970–1990) at the expense of rangelands and forests led to land degradation<br />

by enhancing soil erosion. Subsequently crop yields declined sharply due to the decreased fertility. A principal<br />

driver has been the rapid growth of the population (2.6 percent per annum -1 ) which increased demand for<br />

agricultural land. Mechanized rainfed agriculture expanded from 500 ha in the 1940s to 2.3 million ha in 2003.<br />

In the coastal part of Sudan, although total annual rainfall is low (75 mm), the sandy texture of the soils makes<br />

them very highly erodible (Elagib, 2011). With the observed increasing seasonality and intensity of rainfall, high<br />

runoff and erodibility in these areas could be expected to cause heavy soil degradation through soil loss.<br />

Studies on factors contributing to wind erosion in Sudan showed that in rainfed agricultural zones, deep<br />

ploughing and leveling of the surface soil caused an increase in its susceptibility to wind erosion, which, in<br />

turn, has led to a severe decline in its fertility and, in some places, to the formation of sand dunes. The fragility<br />

index (degraded land in ha divided by population) is a good measure of the extent of growing pressure in fragile<br />

ecosystems. In Sudan, this value is very high in the hyper arid zone (31.1 percent), the arid zone (30.5 percent),<br />

and the semi-arid zone (22.5 percent). The value is low in the dry sub-humid zone (7.9 percent) and in the moist<br />

sub-humid zone (8 percent) (Ayoub, 1998).<br />

Erosion caused by other land uses<br />

In Lebanon, increasing demand for construction materials has led to extensive unregulated mining<br />

activities, including a large number of open quarries. Darwish et al. (2011) reported that, during the period<br />

from 1989 and 2005, quarries increased by 63 percent, covering an area of 5 267 ha. Many quarries were<br />

established on sloping lands (62.2 percent), triggering acceleration of water erosion processes. The high<br />

population density in countries like Kuwait (120 person km -2 ) has a profound influence on soil disturbance<br />

through uncontrolled human activities. The Nabkha (stabilized aeolian landform developed as result of the<br />

deposition of wind-driven sediments around desert shrubs) along the coastal plain in Kuwait is used as a land<br />

degradation indicator (Khalaf and Al-Awadhi, 2012). The average annual sand drift rate in Kuwait is about 20<br />

m 3 (m width) −1 yr−1 and negatively affects farms causing adverse environmental and economic impacts<br />

(Khalafa and Al-Jjimi, 1993). Al-Awadhi and Cermak (1998) calculated the average sand movement in Kuwait as<br />

7.8×104 kg (m width) -1 yr -1 . In the Jalal-Alzor (Kuwait), human activities such as the unregulated use of off-road<br />

vehicles has resulted in soil disturbance and accelerated soil erosion. There has been a consequent increase<br />

in the rate of deflated sand from 220.5 kg m -1 width in 1989 to 400 kg m -1 in 2007, a total rate of increase of 81<br />

percent in two decades (cited by Al-Awadhi, 2013).<br />

Grazing was found to enhance soil loss by water. In the Matash Mountains of the Alborz Mountain range<br />

in Talesh Region, Iran (slope of 16 percent and 1 286 mm of precipitation per annum), soil loss due to open<br />

grazing was more than 26 times that in rainfed agriculture (Sadeghi et al., 2007). In Sudan the dominant<br />

type of housing is the traditional hut made from forest products. These buildings need to be renewed every<br />

twoyears on average. A study found that this practice exacerbates the process of soil erosion. Conserving and<br />

restoring the vegetation cover in these areas was achieved through adoption of mud huts. As a result, the<br />

stocking density of trees around the villages went up compared to the control (FAO, 2013b).<br />

Deforestation is also a factor inducing soil erosion. Fuel wood or charcoal production for domestic use is<br />

one element in this deforestation. Deforestation for agriculture in semi-arid lands around settlement areas is<br />

also a cause of soil degradation, for instance in the Jifara Plain of Libya.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

413<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Dust storms<br />

Dust storms are frequent in the region and widely reported. A dust storm carries toxic elements like Pb<br />

with concentrations as low as 20 to 288 mg kg–1 in Oman to higher levels of 742 mg kg–1 in Bahrain and 1762<br />

mg kg–1 in Saudi Arabia (Madany, Akhter and Al-Jowder, 1994; Al-Rajhi, Seaward and Al-Aamer, 1996). The<br />

problem of sand drifting and dune migration is of special concern in some countries of the region such as<br />

Saudi Arabia, where approximately one-third of the country is covered by moving sand. Al-Harthi (2002) found<br />

that these storms have resulted in dune movement of 9.9 m yr -1 (for 4.9 m-high dune) up to 16.5 m yr -1 (for 1.9-m<br />

high dunes). This problem is exacerbated by human activities such as overgrazing or other activities that may<br />

destroy the desert pavement which protects the loose sand underneath.<br />

In Kuwait, the sand drift potential was found to be as high as 354 vector units (Al-Awadhi, Al-Helal and<br />

Al-Enezi, 2005). Sandstorms are very frequent in summer especially when the wind speed exceeds 6 m s -1 . An<br />

annual amount of sand drift can measure 7.8×104 kg m -1 width (Al-Awadhi and Misak, 2000).<br />

As cited by Goudie and Middleton (2001), estimates of rates of dust deposition exist for a number of sites at<br />

varying distances from the Sahara. The dust originates from southern Algeria, the Nubian Desert in southern<br />

Egypt and Northern Sudan. Volumes carried to Western Europe are less than 1 g m -2 . Up to 5.1 g m -2 may reach<br />

Spain, while over Sardinia, Corsica, Crete and the south-east Mediterranean, most values are between 10<br />

and 40 g m -2 . Long-range transport of Saharan dust to the central Mediterranean is characterized by events<br />

lasting two to four days, compared to an average duration of just one day for events reaching the Eastern<br />

Mediterranean from the Arabian Desert (Dayan et al., 1991).<br />

Several studies reported the frequency of dust storms in the Arabian Peninsula and found that the average<br />

quantity of dust falling on Kuwait and Riyadh were 191 and 392 tonnes km–2year–1 (cited by Ibrahim and El-<br />

Gaely, 2012). A recent study (Jish Prakash et al., 2014) on the impact of dust storms on the Arabian Peninsula<br />

and the Red Sea reported that strong winds (velocities exceeding 15 m s−1) entrained large quantities of<br />

dust particles into the atmosphere with sources including the lower Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq, areas of<br />

Kuwait, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, and the basin of the Arabian desert (which includes the Rub’ al<br />

Khali, An Nafud and Ad Dahna). The study also reported that the frequent dust outbreaks and dust storms<br />

each year in the NENA region have profound effects on all aspects of human activity and natural processes.<br />

The total amount of dust generated by the storms is estimated at 93.76Mt, of which 80 percent is deposited<br />

within the area, around 6 percent (5.3 million tonnes) is deposited in the Arabian Sea, the Gulf received 15<br />

percent (1.2 million tonnes), and the Red Sea roughly 6 million tonnes. In the Middle East, more than 60 dust<br />

storms occurred during the period 2003–2011 with significant impact on the countries of the region (Hamidi,<br />

Kavianpourl and Shao, 2013). Some countries are worst affected. Iraq, for example, experiences on average<br />

about 122 dust storms and 283 dusty days eachyear. Some experts expect this may increase to 300 dusty days<br />

and dust storms a year within the next ten years (Kobler, 2013).<br />

Consequences of soil erosion<br />

Erosion processes remove the fertile part of the soils and thus reduce the effective depth to be exploited by<br />

roots and the amount of water available to plants. This is considered a major constraint limiting productivity<br />

in Morocco (Dahan et al., 2012). In the Maghreb region (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia), uncontrolled runoff from<br />

terraces has reached the stage of gully formation. More generally, sheet and gully erosion has become common<br />

due to increased population, deforestation, overgrazing, and expansion of cultivation on steep land (Dregne,<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

414<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


2002). There are few studies on the effects of erosion on land productivity in the region. However, one research<br />

study on barley in Aridisols of Egypt (Afifi et al., 1992; Wassif, Atta and Tadros, 1995) found a declining yield<br />

of 2 kg ha -1 Mg -1 of soil erosion which is equivalent to 0.21 percent Mg -1 soil erosion. A study in Iran found soil<br />

erodibility by water was negatively correlated with wheat yields (Vaezi, 2012). The agricultural productivity<br />

of oases in countries like Sudan and Egypt is threatened by the adverse impacts of sand encroachment and<br />

mobile dunes.<br />

Responses to soil erosion<br />

Ways to contain erosion are very diverse and location-specific. In the sandy depression of El-Farafra,<br />

Egypt, which suffers from wind erosion, Sallam, Elwan and Rabi, (1995) reported that mixing sandy soils with<br />

grey shale at a ratio of 15 percent (w/w) improved the quality of these soils. Organic manures, compost and<br />

synthetic soil conditioners have been used to contain wind erosion. Compost alone or compost combined<br />

with hydrogel conditioners was found to decrease erosion by 58 to 74 percent (El-Hady and Abo-Sedera, 2006).<br />

One study found that water erosion could be stemmed in Morocco by increasing levels of C in the topsoil<br />

using conservation measures (Mrabet et al., 2001). Irrespective of rotation, conservation measures were<br />

found to increase topsoil C by 44 percent. The study concluded that systems with increased C are generally<br />

characterized by diminished erosion.<br />

Government policy responses can play a vital role. For example, public policy in Egypt and Iraq has been<br />

determinant in increasing green cover in desert soils in those countries (Nielsen and Adriansen, 2005). The Iraqi<br />

case is a negative one, illustrating the effects of deliberate government policies in draining the marshlands,<br />

which resulted in significant land degradation. Recent efforts have been devoted to the re-establishment of<br />

these marshes. They are being re-flooded and vegetation is returning. The Egyptian government promoted<br />

land reclamation after the 1952 revolution aiming at increasing agricultural production. This reclamation<br />

was executed through internationally funded developmental projects and with local funding and involved<br />

distributing small areas of lands to graduates.<br />

Efforts at containing water erosion in rainfed farming in Yemen depend on the establishment and<br />

maintenance of terraces as conservation structures, a highly labour intensive task. However, labour shortages<br />

and lack of profitability have been constraints, and the degradation of these structures has continued. In<br />

Jordan, the use of polyacrylamide (PAM) at application rates of 10 to 30 kg ha -1 was found to be very effective<br />

in reducing runoff and soil loss by up to 23 percent and 53.9 percent, respectively. As a result, dry matter crop<br />

yield went up by 35 to 56 percent (Abu-Zreig, Al-Sharif and Amayreh, 2007). Interestingly, this study developed<br />

an increased threshold runoff value of 0.56 mm rainfall in control sites to 1.11 mm in PAM plots (e.g. close to 100<br />

percent). Also Abu-Zreig (2006) pointed out that PAM with more surface area (30 percent) reduced soil loss by<br />

approximately 46 percent compared to the 24 percent reduction with less surface area (20 percent).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> conservation to mitigate erosion has also been done by planting trees and grass along wadis.<br />

Construction of diversion banks and dams across watercourses has been carried out on slopes and stream<br />

beds in Libya. One study (Mohammed, Stigter and Adam, 1996) found that windbreaks reduced wind speed by<br />

about 20 percent and in turn limited sand deposition. However, sand deposition also occurred within the belt<br />

which after some time started to act as a zero permeability wind break. This study suggested that control of<br />

sands in the source area using shelterbelts may not be sufficient in the long term.<br />

Some countries have introduced policies to reverse land degradation due to erosion. In the mechanized<br />

rainfed projects of Sudan, farmers are required to leave 10 percent of the cultivated area for forest trees. To<br />

protect soil against erosion after fire in Lebanon, a ministerial decision (181/98) imposed a five year ban on<br />

grazing on public land after fires to enhance land cover recovery.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

415<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


13.4.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization/sodification<br />

Distribution of salt-affected soils in the region varies geographically with climate, agricultural activities,<br />

irrigation methods and policies related to land management. These soils are mainly confined to irrigated<br />

farming systems in the arid and semi-arid zones. The salts present are either of intrinsic origin (typical of Egypt,<br />

Sudan and Iran) or are the result of sea water intrusion in coastal regions or of irrigation with brackish or<br />

saline groundwater. In the irrigated zones of Morocco, continuous irrigation has resulted in soil salinization.<br />

Secondary salinization due to irrigation with saline water is also reported in the NENA region. In Libya, Sudan,<br />

Iran, Iraq and United Arab Emirates, large tracts of lands have been degraded due to heavy irrigation with<br />

groundwater. Salinity, sodicity or the combination of both are seriously affecting productive areas like the Nile<br />

Delta of Egypt and the Euphrates Valley in Iraq and Syria. The situation is further complicated by association<br />

with problems of waterlogging and high CaCO 3<br />

(up to 90 percent in the United Arab Emirates, Al Barshamgi,<br />

1997). In Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, soil salinization is mainly confined to coastal areas, but also<br />

occurs on irrigated farms.<br />

Local soil conditions can worsen the situation. For instance in the southern part of the Jordan Valley, the soil<br />

is characterized by high salt content, poor permeability and high gypsum content. The degradation is worse<br />

when low quality irrigation water, for example treated waste water, replaces fresh water. In Libya, El-Tantawi<br />

(2005) reported that the soils of the Jifara Plain are usually calcareous and often shallow, with huge areas of<br />

calcrete outcrops developed during the Pleistocene epoch. Gypsum encrustation is commonplace in the drier<br />

parts where annual precipitation is below 200 mm.<br />

Salinity problems in the region also stem from inadequate irrigation water management (Al-Hiba, 1997).<br />

In almost all countries of the region with coastlines, heavy extraction of groundwater has led to intrusion of<br />

seawater into aquifers, thereby raising the content of salts in the water. An example is the Batinah aquifer of<br />

the Sultanate of Oman where seawater is intruding at an alarming pace (Naifer, Al-Rawahy and Zekri, 2011).<br />

The cause was the expansion of agriculture since the 1980s which accelerated the overuse of groundwater,<br />

disturbing the water balance and ultimately leading to water intrusion from the sea. In the Jifara Plain of Libya,<br />

increased human pressure on aquifers has induced seawater intrusion in the coastal zones and a combination<br />

of over-irrigation and inefficient drainage causes waterlogging and secondary salinization.<br />

The main causes of build-up in salinity in the region are: (1) improper functioning or absence of drainage<br />

systems; (2) a rise in groundwater salinity combined with high rates of evapotranspiration; and (3) high salinity<br />

in irrigation water. Siadat, Bybordi and Malakouti (1997) recognized natural factors and humaninduced factors<br />

that cause salinity in Iran. The natural causes of soil salinity in Iran are geological conditions, climatic factors<br />

(evaporation, rainfall and wind), salt transport by water, and intrusion of saline bodies of water into the<br />

coastal aquifers. However, of greater concern and importance is humaninduced salinity. This type of salinity<br />

can stem from a number of causes, including: poor water management, over-grazing, improper land levelling,<br />

and overuse of groundwater leading to saline water intrusion.<br />

Secondary salinization due to irrigation with saline water is also reported in the region. In the Tadla irrigated<br />

perimeter in Morocco, soil degradation through secondary soil salinity and sodicity are caused by heavy<br />

irrigation with ground- and surface water together with agricultural intensification. In Algeria, secondary<br />

salinization affects 10 to 15 percent of the total irrigated land. About 90 percent of the agricultural farms in<br />

Al Ain in the United Arab Emirates are affected by salinity (Abdelfattah, Shahid and Othman, 2009). It is clear<br />

that in some countries of the region, secondary salinization due to irrigation does not develop. One example<br />

is in the Vertisols of Sudan, despite more than 80years of irrigation. This is mainly due to the low salt content<br />

of Nile water (EC of 120 to 220 μS cm -1 ).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

416<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Consequences of salinization<br />

Salinity in the region has badly affected cropping systems and in many cases has significantly reduced crop<br />

yields. For example, soil salinity in the Jifara plain in Libya has caused wheat yields to decrease from 5 tonnes<br />

ha -1 in the 1980s to just 0.5 tonnes ha -1 by 1987. In Iran the annual economic losses due to salinity are estimated<br />

at more than US$ 1 billion (Qadir, Qureshi and Cheraghi, 2008). The coastal area is one of the most highly<br />

populated regions of Oman, especially the Batinah area where about 52 percent of land is under cultivation<br />

and suffers from salinity. Naifer, Al-Rawahy and Zekri, (2011) showed that when salinity increases from low<br />

(less than 2.5 dS m -1 ) to medium (7.5 dS m -1 ) and to high (more than 7.5 dS m -1 ) levels, losses are equivalent to<br />

US$ 1 604 ha -1 and US$ 2 748 ha -1 , respectively. <strong>Soil</strong> salinity, sodicity and waterlogging conditions have definite<br />

adverse impacts on soil productivity, in the range of 30-35 percent of potential productivity.<br />

Responses to salinization<br />

There are many responses in the region to contain the salinity threat such as: (1) direct leaching of salts, (2)<br />

planting salt tolerant varieties, (3) domestication of native wild halophytes for use in agro-pastoral systems,<br />

(4) phytoremediation or bioremediation, (5) chemical amelioration, and (6) the use of organic amendments.<br />

In Iraq and Egypt, surface and subsurface drainage systems have been installed to control rising water tables<br />

and arrest soil salinity. In Iran, Syria and other Gulf countries, crop-based management and fertilizers are used<br />

to combat salinization (Qadir, Qureshi and Cheraghi, 2007). In Iran, Haloxylon aphyllum, Haloxylon persicum,<br />

Petropyrum euphratica and Tamarix aphylla are potential species for saline environments (Djavanshir,<br />

Dasmalchi and Emararty, 1996). Atriplex is a fodder shrub adapted to arid lands which can bring annual income<br />

as high as US$200 ha -1 (Koocheki, 2000; Tork Nejad and Koocheki, 2000). Breeding salt tolerant varieties of<br />

crops (e.g. wheat, barley, alfalfa, sorghum) is also a response to saline environments, although most results so<br />

far are based on controlled environments rather than on actual yields from the field.<br />

The use of organic amendments in Egypt showed that the mixed application of farmyard manure and gypsum<br />

(1:1) significantly reduces soil salinity and sodicity (Abd Elrahman et al., 2012). Recently, phytoremediation or<br />

plant-based reclamation has been introduced in the region. In Sudan there are very good responses for control<br />

of sodicity relying on phytoremediation, superior to results from the gypsum amendment traditionally used.<br />

The production of H+ proton in the rhizosphere during N-fixation from some legumes like hyacinth bean<br />

(Dolichos lablab L.) removed as much Na+ as did gypsum application which indicates its importance in calcite<br />

dissolution of calcareous salt affected soils (Mubarak and Nortcliff, 2010).<br />

13.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

Information on soil carbon changes in the region is scarce. Estimates of soil C sequestration are basically<br />

confined to the work on the drylands ecosystems of West Asia-North Africa (WANA) carried out by Lal (2002).<br />

These data are nonetheless very useful and can be applied across NENA. Lal’s study indicated that the total loss<br />

of soil-C from the WANA region could be about 6 to 12 Pg. Despite the low soil C levels in the region (generally<br />

less than 5 g kg -1 ), with effective control measures of degraded soils, the region could sequester C at the rate<br />

of 0.1 to 0.2 Mg ha -1 yr -1 (for irrigated crop land) and 0.05 to 0.1 Mg ha -1 yr -1 for both rainfed and rangeland. In<br />

other words, with desertification control, reclamation of salt-affected soils, and intensification of agriculture<br />

on undegraded soils, the soils of the region have the potential to sequester 24 to 31 percent (168-380 Tg yr -1 ) of<br />

the total global drylands soil C (710-1220 Tg yr -1 ). The potential annual sequestration rate could reach values<br />

between 0.2 and 0.4 Pg C yr -1 , compared to the 1.0 C yr -1 in total global drylands (e.g. 20 to 40 percent).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

417<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


SOC change in rainfed farming systems<br />

The Century model was used by Poussart, Ardö and Olsson, (2004) in a study of the Arenosols of Kordofan<br />

(Sudan) to estimate soil C levels and changes with reference to values prior to known human interaction.<br />

Changes were due to pastoral activities combined with cultivation of rainfed crops like Pennisetum<br />

typhoideum), sesame (Sesamum indicum), sorghum (Sorghum vulgare), and groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea).<br />

The base scenario modelled indicates that the land management practices continued for more than a century<br />

have led to a loss of C of about 180 g m -2 (1.8 tonnes C ha -1 ) which is equal to 1.6 gm -2 yr -1 or approximately<br />

equivalent to half of the historical level of C in the year 1890. Additionally, Ardö and Olsson (2003) modelled C<br />

changes in north Kordofan in the top 20 cm during the period 1800–2100, with mostly Arenosol and Vertisols<br />

soil types. They found that C estimates in cropped land have dropped from 16.64 million tonnes in the year<br />

1800 to 9.16 million tonnes (e.g. a 45 percent reduction), whereas C in other land uses such as shrublands,<br />

savannah, grassland, or barren or sparsely vegetated land remained almost constant. Another study in north<br />

Kordofan found that rapid population growth has caused huge soil C loss (73 percent at rate of 16.9 g C m -2 yr -1 )<br />

in the top 0-20 cm from 851 g C m -2 in 1963 to 227 g C m -2 in 2000 (Ardö and Olsson, 2004).<br />

The effects of cultivation of heavy textured soils on C change in some countries of the Mashreq region<br />

(Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine) have been found to be broadly similar to results from the Maghreb<br />

(Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya). Masri and Ryan (2006), in a study on Syria, compared the effects of more<br />

than twentyyears of wheat cultivation in rotation with lentil (Lens culinaris), chickpea (Cicer arietinum),<br />

medic (Medicago sativa), vetch (Vicia sativa) and watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris) with continuous wheat<br />

grown in montmorillonitic thermic Chromic Calcixert. The trial showed that, apart from the rotation of wheat<br />

with medic which has higher C (8.0 g kg -1 ), C content in continuous wheat cultivation (6.3 g kg -1 ) or in other<br />

rotations (6.6-7.0 g kg -1 ) differs little from fallow (6.6 g kg -1 ). This suggests that conventional farming systems<br />

in the Vertisols of the region may not be depleting soil C.<br />

In the western part of Jordan, the change in C is a function not only of a land use system but also of the<br />

human impact in a specific land use. For example, cultivating tobacco and clearing residues, and growing<br />

irrigated cereals retain almost similar amounts of C (6-7 g kg -1 ), whereas ploughing rainfed cereals and<br />

grazing with compaction consequences retain C contents of only about 1.1 g kg -1 (Khresat et al., 1998). In the<br />

Lorestan Province of Iran, management practices on rangeland in areas with slopes of 10 to 26 percent caused<br />

pronounced reduction in C, sometimes twice levels found in dryland farming. When wheat was subsequently<br />

grown, wheat dry matter, grain yield and grain weight all reduced relative to the control dry farming (by 14, 33<br />

and 21 percent respectively), which indicates the degrading effects of using these slopes as rangeland (Asadi<br />

et al., 2012).<br />

SOC changes in irrigated farming systems<br />

Irrigated soils in the southern Mediterranean region can be considered as incubators providing optimal<br />

conditions (humidity and temperature) for microbial activity and thus a rapid degradation of organic carbon. A<br />

mean annual variation rate of organic matter of -0.09 percent yr -1 over a decade was established in the Doukkala<br />

region of Morocco (Badraoui, 1998). This decrease of organic matter is attributed to the non-incorporation<br />

of crop residues into the soils. Crop residues contribute about 30 percent of the total forage consumption<br />

in Morocco. Countries like Morocco experience rapid organic matter decomposition and turnover and hence<br />

very low levels of organic matter are converted into humus. The reasons for this rapid decomposition include:<br />

the high temperature, widespread of use of tillage, clean fallow, overgrazing, no practice of residue recycling,<br />

and climatic conditions.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

418<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Rates of C change are influenced not only by land use but also by soil type. Clay soils tend to counteract<br />

decomposition and hence reduce chances of C loss. For example, in clay soils of Morocco, Bessam and<br />

Marbet (2003) reported that in seven years of continuous tilling, soil SOC reduced in the 0-20 cm profile by<br />

17 percent (e.g. 0.33 g kg -1 yr -1 ). As cultivation of such soils advances, it was possible over time (an eleven year<br />

period was monitored) to store more C (by 3.7 percent) in the entire 0-20 cm depth but not the top 2.5 cm<br />

due to incorporation. The decrease in topsoil C noted increases vulnerability to degradation by erosion due to<br />

reduction in topsoil buffering capacity or resilience.<br />

It is apparent that continuous cultivation does not always consume soil C. There are exceptions, however,<br />

for example the case of the irrigated Vertisols of the Gezira Scheme of Sudan which have been continuously<br />

cropped for more than 80 years. The carbon content in a furrow slice (0-10 and 10-35cm) of permanent fallow<br />

(4 and 4.61 g kg -1 ) was lower than that in cultivated plots (6.35 and 5.44 g kg -1 ) by about 37 and 15 percent<br />

respectively which indicates that C loss due to cultivation in such soils is not a small problem (Elias and Alaily,<br />

2002). Physical protection of C in heavy textured soils under long-term cultivation (about 30 years) and with<br />

intensive tillage decreased C in the top 0-15 cm by 15 to 24 percent relative to wood and fallow lands (Biro et<br />

al., 2013).<br />

In desert soils carbon could likely be increased by irrigation of alfalafa rotated with wheat or wheat rotated<br />

with fallow. One study showed this to have increased C in the top 0-10, 10-20 and 20-30 cm depths by factors<br />

of 5.1-6.8, 3.0-4.6 and 6.8-11.6 respectively (Fallahzadeh and Hajabbasi, 2012a). This rotation could thus stabilize<br />

soil aggregates and consequently reduce the vulnerability of desert soils to erosion by either wind or water.<br />

However, C could also be decreased by 24 to 47 percent during bio-remediation (land farming processes) of<br />

soils contaminated with hydrocarbon of petroleum origin where microbial activities are greatly enhanced due<br />

to aeration (Besalatpour et al., 2011).<br />

SOC change and forest clearing<br />

Tree plantations have been found to be the best system to conserve C in the region. Other land use systems<br />

practiced on light soils in the region seem to result in C loss. For example, in the sandy soils of western Sudan,<br />

taking tree C in the 0-30 cm depth as a reference, three years of sole cropping or cropping mixed with trees<br />

caused about 41 to 47 percent C reduction (El Tahir et al., 2008).<br />

In Jordan, land resources have been affected by rapid land use change, accelerated by socio-economic<br />

factors including high population growth, urbanization and agricultural intensification. Farmers converted a<br />

forest located in Ajloun to cultivation of wheat (Triticum spp.) and barley (Hordeum spp). After more than 50<br />

years of cultivation, Khresat et al. (2008) reported that soil C in the top 0-20 cm of mostly Inceptisols, Mollisols<br />

and Vertisols had decreased from 6.73 g kg -1 to 4.70 g kg -1 (e.g. a 30 percent reduction). In Iran, the conversion of<br />

forest or pasture to arable lands in five cultivation sites where tillage has now been practiced for 40-50 years<br />

was found to have caused 30-68 percent loss of topsoil (0-20 cm) SOC, specifically from 3.86-9.84 to 3.25-8.06<br />

kg m -2 (Golchin and Asgari, 2008). Farming practices had also mixed SOC down the profile, leaving less SOC<br />

on the topsoil for surface protection against degradation by erosion and also reducing the capacity of the soil<br />

to retain nutrients.<br />

Also in Iran, change from pasture to dryland farming on Inceptisols was found to have degraded soil and<br />

reduced SOC by about 67 percent. Recovery times can be very long indeed. For example, a study found that 30<br />

to 60 years will be required to restore soil C to the initial content of rangeland ecosystems of Chaharmahal and<br />

Bakhtiari Province in Central Iran. After more than a century of cultivation, SOC in the top 0-15 and 15-30 cm<br />

had reduced by 25-34 percent (Chigani, Khajeddin and Karimzadeh, 2012).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

419<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


The change in SOC depends on soil type. For example, continuous cultivation of Cambisols in northern Iran<br />

tends to decrease C by 29 to 74 percent as compared to grass or forest use respectively, whereas the equivalent<br />

decline for Vertisols is only 11 to 59 percent.<br />

Another study on soil quality indicators potentially sensitive to land degradation due to land use change<br />

was carried out in a rangeland pasture in Iran’s Isfahan Province that had been protected for more than two<br />

decades (Nael, Khademi and Hajabbasi, 2004). The study showed that C content in the protected range was<br />

close to double (1.7 times) that of areas of uncontrolled grazing. This study clearly indicated that in the dryland<br />

of this region, decisions that control grazing are favourable for soil C storage.<br />

In another study, four decades after conversion from oak forest (Quercus brantii Lindl.) to vegetable<br />

cultivation (tomato and snap bean), soils had lost almost 53 percent of C (Fallahzadeh and Hajabbasi, 2012b). A<br />

further study found that twentyyears after oak forest (Quercus brantii) in the Lordegan region of Iran’s Zagros<br />

mountains was converted into either wheat or barley cultivation or agroforestry uses, soil C in the 0-30 cm<br />

depth decreased by 52 and 61 percent, respectively (Hajabbasi et al., 1997).<br />

13.4.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination<br />

Land degradation due to accumulation of contaminants is concentrated in either oil producing countries<br />

or those that are heavily populated. In agricultural soils, contamination is generally restricted to irrigated<br />

farming systems. In some instances, the over-use of chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides) has<br />

sharply increased the amount of chemical nutrients in the drainage water, causing water eutrophication<br />

(NAP, 2002). Since the construction of the Aswan High Dam of Egypt in 1970, fertilizers and pesticides have<br />

been heavily used in order to substitute for the loss of fertile sediments. FAO (2012) reported that during the<br />

period from 1950 to 1990, chemical fertilizer use increased more than fourfold, from 2 143 tonnes in the 1950s<br />

up to 11 700 tonnes in 1990. These chemical fertilizers and the residues of applied pesticides have caused the<br />

contamination of soil and water resources in the Nile Delta.<br />

In Iran, contamination of soil is increasing from a variety of sources: petroleum hydrocarbons spilled during<br />

transportation, leakage from tanks, accidental spillage, pipeline ruptures, or dumping of oil landfill. This<br />

contamination threatens soil functions. It may decrease seed germination of grasses by more than 50 percent<br />

(Besalatpour et al., 2008) – although this may not necessarily affect their subsequent performance. It also<br />

reduces dry matter accumulation in sunflower and safflower by 50 and 73 percent, respectively (Besalatpour<br />

et al., 2008). The two Gulf wars in 1990 and 1991 contributed to contamination of this kind through the<br />

detonation of oil wells (Al-Senafy et al., 1997; Misak, Khalaf and Omar, 2009).<br />

Case study: Kuwait experience in remediation of oil contamination<br />

After the Iraq war, over 300 oil lakes covering an area of 46 km 2 were formed within Kuwait. The lakes were<br />

up to two meters deep, and the oil penetrated the soil to varying depths. To restore areas degraded by oil,<br />

the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research and the Japan Petroleum Energy Centre began in 1994 to devise<br />

biological technologies for remediation and rehabilitation (Figure 13.3).<br />

In a small scale pilot (1 920 m 2<br />

) and in field demonstrations, heavily oil contaminated soil was remediated<br />

over a 12-18 month period, using bioremediation techniques involving enhanced land farming techniques,<br />

windrow composting piles, and static bioventing piles. The programme resulted in 80-90.5 percent<br />

reduction in the total petroleum hydrocarbons and total alkanes (Al Awadhi, 1996; Balba et al., 1998). This<br />

technology is considered to be economical, energy efficient, and environmentally friendly with minimal<br />

residue disposal problems. However, the volatilization of airborne volatile organic compounds in the<br />

atmosphere during the process of degradation may lead to serious human health risk (Hejazi, Hussain<br />

and Khan, 2003).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

420<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Figure 13.3 Layout of the project site source (a) and conceptual design and layout of bioremediation system (b). Source: Balba et al.,<br />

1998.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

421<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Contamination of soil by heavy metals is also an issue (Misak, Khalaf and Omar, 2009). In central Iran,<br />

farmers are extensively using sewage sludge as a fertilizer for vegetable production and, in the absence of<br />

regulation, heavy metals tend to accumulate in the soil (Afyuni, Rezaeinejad and Schulin, 2006). The so-called<br />

‘global dust belt’ that extends from the west coast of North Africa, through the Middle East into Central Asia<br />

(see Section 7.4) transports mineral dust in the region. This dust may carry contaminants and this has been in<br />

fact the main source of soil pollution with heavy metals in the Arabian Peninsula. The dust was found to carry<br />

high levels of lead (65 mg kg -1 in Muscat, 742 mg kg -1 in Bahrain and 1762 mg kg -1 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) and<br />

nickel (43 to 3033 mg kg–1 in Muscat) (Yaghi and Abdul-Wahab, 2004).<br />

In general, soil contamination depends on the distribution of contaminants influenced by high intensity<br />

rainfall of short duration that results in short runoff, by dust storms, and by human induced factors such as<br />

mixing residual oil with soil, transport to new areas and dumping in selected sites.<br />

Responses to soil contamination<br />

Regional policies for combating desertification<br />

Most NENA countries have policies and programmes for protection of natural resources, including<br />

combating desertification. However, many of these policies and programmes (e.g. in Jordan) emphasize<br />

protective measures, and do not adequately consider rehabilitation or the dimension of the economic and<br />

social cost of land degradation (Al Karadsheh, Akroush and Mazahreh, 2012).<br />

Iran has implemented nine strategies for sustainable development. Egypt has strategies for each agroecological<br />

zone. Lebanon has initiated a large-scale reforestation program and is very active in fighting the root<br />

causes behind land degradation, mainly by promoting the development of rural areas and reducing regional<br />

disparities. The national efforts to combat desertification in Oman have concentrated on development and<br />

conservation of water resources, improvement of land capability and rehabilitation of rangeland. Saudi Arabia<br />

has programmed an array of activities including capacity building, controlling urbanization, sustainable<br />

agricultural development, improvement of water sector, legislation, rehabilitation of degraded rangelands,<br />

forest development and sand dune stabilization. Sudan is integrating strategies for poverty alleviation with<br />

programmes to combat desertification and these include activities for improvement of land resources,<br />

production systems and protection of the environment. Syria has implemented many projects aimed at<br />

expansion of plant cover, controlling desert invasion, establishment of protected areas and green oases,<br />

sand dune fixation and afforestation. United Arab Emirates has ambitious programmes to improve degraded<br />

ecological systems, conserve biodiversity, mitigate climate change effects, and combat desertification.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

422<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


13.5 | Case studies<br />

13.5.1 | Case study: Iran<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> nutrient changes<br />

Change in land use and the use of fertilizers are the main factors affecting soil nutrient change in Iran<br />

(Shiranpour, Bahrami and Shabanpour, 2011). A study in Gilan Province compared the status of forest soils and<br />

the same soils turned into tea gardens over a period of 10 to 40years and showed a significant decline in the<br />

amounts of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium and exchangeable magnesium. Deforestation effects<br />

on soil nutrient losses have been studied in Kajoor watershed in Sari city where results indicated significant<br />

losses of organic matter and phosphorus. Land uses and different management types were compared in the<br />

Taleghan area. The study showed the negative effect of irrigation and monoculture on soil nutrients, while<br />

horticulture and pasture land uses scored better (Sohrabi and Zehtabian, 2012).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> pollution changes<br />

In Iran, surveys carried out in areas where soil pollution occurs indicate that heavy elements make up the<br />

majority of soil contaminants. These pollutants originate from a range of sources, including geological and<br />

mining sources, industrial pollution, petroleum spills, sewage sludge application and excessive usage of<br />

fertilizers on agricultural soils.<br />

Losses and sequestration of soil carbon<br />

Loss of organic matter in soils of Iran is among the most important consequences of soil erosion. Greening<br />

barren land and improving soil management can significantly increase soil carbon sequestration. Forest<br />

ecosystems in equilibrium, with both trees and other vegetation cover, are the principal reservoir of organic<br />

carbon. Varamesh et al. (2010) assessed the effects of reforestation in Tehran Cheetgar Park on carbon<br />

sequestration and soil characteristics. The study indicated that soil carbon sequestration of Acacia senega.is<br />

equal to 78 tonnes ha -1 , and of Conifer Species 57 tonnes ha -1 . In general, the carbon sequestration process led<br />

to improvement of soil and water quality, increased fertility and an improved soil hydrology system as well as<br />

preventing erosion and reducing nutrient loss.<br />

Salinity changes<br />

Yazdani-Nejad and Torabi-Golsefidi (2013) examined the spatial variations and salinity zoning of agricultural<br />

soil in an area of southern Tehran. About 30.4 percent of the area, covering 20 000 ha, was found to be<br />

without any salinity problem. These lands were located mainly in areas where irrigation water from deep wells<br />

was used. A further 42.4 percent of the land had an electrical conductivity of 2 to 4 dS m -1 . In these sections,<br />

irrigation was with water from deep wells but wastewater was also used for irrigation due to water use<br />

restrictions. Zones with conductivity of 4 to 8 dS m -1 occupied 22.6 percent of the area, located in the flat plains<br />

in the southern part. These zones were frequently irrigated with waste water and water from shallow wells,<br />

and also with low quality water from the downstream sections of the Kan River. Finally, 4.5 percent of the<br />

land, located in low lying areas, had high electrical conductivity of 8 to 13 dS m -1 . The overall finding of the study<br />

was that it was the position of the land in the landscape, the depth to the water table and the quality of the<br />

irrigation water that determined the degree of salinization of the land. Other factors that may play a role are<br />

the length of the interval between irrigations and the texture of the soils.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

423<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Figure 13.4 Rate of water erosion in Iran. Source: <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute.<br />

Water erosion<br />

In Iran about 40 percent of the country experiences a low erosion rate (less than 10 tonnes ha -1 ), 25 percent<br />

of the area has a moderate rate of water erosion (10 to 20 tonnes ha -1 ), 23 percent area of the country has a<br />

high erosion rate (20 to 50 tonnes ha -1 ), and 12 percent has a very high erosion (more than 50 tonnes ha -1 ).<br />

Figure 13.4 shows the erosion rates in different regions of Iran.<br />

Results of recent research conducted in the watersheds of the country in recentyears suggest an increased<br />

rate of erosion according to various models used (Hosseinkhani, 2013; Kavian et al., 2014; Karam, Safarian<br />

and Hajjeh Froshnia, 2010; Zomorodian and Rahimi, 2012; Bayat et al., 2011; Naderi, Karimi and Naseri, 2010;<br />

Zare Bidaki and Badri, 2014). Land-use change is one of the most important factors that exacerbate erosion in<br />

basins (Mohamadzade, Charm and Eskandari, 2014; Ajami, Khormali and Ayoubi, 2012).<br />

Wind erosion<br />

In Iran’s deserts and arid areas, rapid changes in temperature cause pressure gradients in different parts<br />

which result in constant strong winds. Due to these strong winds and to the lack of moisture and vegetation,<br />

both small and large soil particles are transported, leading to soil erosion and deposition (Mehrshahy and<br />

Nakoonam, 2009). Sand dunes are estimated to cover 12 million ha. Half of these dunes are active or semiactive<br />

(Refahi, 2004). The density of air deposits measured over a 40year period shows a growing trend in<br />

wind erosion in recent years. Sediment textures have also changed, with a significant increase in evaporated<br />

deposits such as salts and gypsum.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

424<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Studies show that both climatic and human factors play an important role in the development of wind<br />

erosion. The most important climatic factors are rainfall patterns, rising temperatures, intense evaporation<br />

from the playa, and reduced intake of water. High wind strengths also reduce the moisture level of the soil<br />

and enhance wind erosion rates. The human factor is related to land use and concerns the reduction of water<br />

entering the playa because of dam construction and excessive pressure on pastures and agricultural land in<br />

recent years (Hosseinzade, Khaneabad and Bargi, 2011).<br />

Figure 13.5 shows days with dust storms in 2012, while Figure 13.6 shows the origin of dust storms in 2012.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

425<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Turkey<br />

Iran<br />

Lebanon<br />

Syria<br />

Iraq<br />

Palestine<br />

Jordan<br />

Kuwait<br />

Dust source areas<br />

Saudi Arabia<br />

Bahrain<br />

Qatar<br />

Figure 13.6 Internal and external dust sources in recent years in Iran. Source: University of Tehran, 2013.<br />

The origin of dust in dust storms in Iran is both internal and external to the country. Since 2006 considerable<br />

dust has affected the west and south west of the country, originating from Iraq and Syria. Other areas such<br />

as parts of Jordan, Kuwait and northern Saudi Arabia are also involved in the creation of dust in Iran (Jalali,<br />

Bahrami and Darvishi Bolurani, 2012). Although many recent dust storms in Iran have foreign origins, this does<br />

not mean that domestic sources play no part in this phenomenon (Fattahia, Noohia and Shiravand, 2012).<br />

13.6.2 | Case Study: Tunisia<br />

Between 2006 and 2010 a detailed study was undertaken to assess land degradation in Tunisia. A<br />

standardized methodology was adopted to map in an interdisciplinary way all aspects of land degradation<br />

(type, extent, degree, trends and impact on ecosystem services) at a national scale. The exercise involved a<br />

large number of national institutions and stakeholders, together with international expertise (FAO, 2011a). In<br />

addition, an inventory was made of successful local practices that combatted land degradation (FAO, 2011b).<br />

This study was complemented by three investigations at local level (in Kasserine, Siliana and Médenine) that<br />

refined the identification of the socio-economic pressures and drivers behind land degradation (FAO, 2011c).<br />

The results have subsequently been expanded and refined.<br />

Major outcomes of the investigation, relevant for the present assessment of soil change and its impact on<br />

ecosystem goods and services were:<br />

1 - The preparation of a national land use system map<br />

The scale of this map is 1:500 000. It is based on a rasterized database at 30 arc seconds. It was prepared<br />

using a standard methodology (Nachtergaele and Petri, 2011). The draft map was validated by regional<br />

institutions in the country and was later refined by simplifying the pastoral classes and by introducing a<br />

specific unit that concerned alfalfa areas which make up 170 000 ha of the country.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

426<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


2 - Land degradation assessment mapping<br />

The assessment used a standard methodology (Liniger et al., 2011) that allowed the participatory mapping<br />

of the major types of ecosystem degradation (soil, water and biological) and sub-types (for instance, water<br />

erosion, compaction, decline in ground water quality or reduction of vegetative cover). At the same time the<br />

intensity (degree) and the trend of the ongoing ecosystem change was evaluated on the basis of arbitrary<br />

classes (typically ranging from none to severe or slow to fast). The evaluation was conducted in a participatory<br />

way involving various stakeholders in the assessment and using hard data where they were available. The<br />

direct pressures (for instance improper soil management, deforestation or natural causes) and the indirect<br />

socio economic causes (for instance lack of knowledge or investment) were also determined in the same<br />

participatory way, as was the impact on ecosystem goods and services. Examples illustrating the outcome of<br />

the assessment are given in the following maps which evaluate water erosion (Figure 13.7a) and wind erosion<br />

(Figure 13.7b). Differences in the extent of ongoing degradation processes in the country could also be mapped.<br />

Figure 13.7 Assessment of Water (a) and Wind Erosion (b) in Tunisia<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

427<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Figure 13.8 <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation in Tunisia<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

428<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Figure 13.9 Type of ecosystem service most affected.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

429<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


3 - Sustainable land management mapping.<br />

In each unit of the national map, the prevailing land management practices were inventoried using a<br />

standard methodology (Liniger et al., 2011). This allowed the characterization of practices in terms of type of<br />

intervention (agronomic, vegetative etc) and in terms of objectives (prevention, mitigation or rehabilitation).<br />

At the same time, the extent, trend and efficiency of the conservation practices were assessed. Examples of<br />

outputs are given for the main conservation types used in the country (Figure 13.8.) and for the impact of soil<br />

degradation on ecosystem goods and services (Figure 13.9.).<br />

13.6 | Conclusions<br />

Although there is a wealth of local and national studies on soil change in the region, a systematic and<br />

standardized approach is lacking. Results on the extent and intensity of soil change processes still refer to the<br />

GLASOD study carried out in the late 1980s.<br />

The degradation of natural resources in arable lands is considered as one of the main threats to agricultural<br />

production in all countries of the region. Ecosystem service quality and capacity is greatly reduced by degradation<br />

caused by salinity, erosion, contamination and poor management that leads to a loss of soil organic matter.<br />

Water erosion is predominant in that part of the region which has sloping lands. Where rainfed agriculture<br />

is practiced, water erosion may even occur in gently sloping areas. Wind erosion is also a causative factor of<br />

topsoil removal. Population increase has resulted in soil disturbance due to uncontrolled human activities<br />

such as mining and open quarries that have triggered and accelerated erosion processes. Degradation due to<br />

salinity and sodicity varies geographically with climate, agricultural activities, irrigation methods and land<br />

management policies and is mainly restricted to irrigated farming systems. Causative factors are of intrinsic<br />

origin, seawater intrusion or irrigation from groundwater with elevated salt content. Degradation due to<br />

contamination is mainly found in countries with high population, high oil production or heavy mining. In<br />

irrigated farming systems with overuse of chemicals, the load of toxic elements in groundwater is increased.<br />

Salinity has greatly reduced crop yields and increased economic annual losses across the region to nearly<br />

US$1 billion, equivalent to as much as US$1 604 ha -1 to US$2 748 ha -1 . In some countries the reduction in soil<br />

productivity was estimated to be in the range of 30-35 percent of the potential productivity.<br />

Responses to degradation caused by erosion include improving soil resilience by increasing C inputs. This can<br />

be achieved using organic manures, compost and synthetic soil conditioners and soil conservation measures<br />

on sloping lands. Policies and regulation and socio-economic factors at individual country level were found<br />

to help reverse land degradation due to erosion. Ways of reclaiming salt-affected soils include: salt leaching<br />

and drainage interventions, crop-based management, chemical and organic amendments, fertilizers, salt<br />

tolerant plants, crop management and phytoremediation. Measures to contain degradation caused by oil<br />

contamination include farming techniques that partly eliminate hydrocarbons through decomposition,<br />

and bio-remediation using some grass species. With effective desertification control, the potential annual<br />

C sequestration rate could reach values between 0.2 to 0.4 Pg C yr -1 , compared to the 1.0 Pg C yr -1 in drylands<br />

worldwide. Ranking of soil threats is given in Table 13.3.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

430<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Threat to soil<br />

function<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

Salinization<br />

and sodification<br />

Organic<br />

carbon change<br />

Contamination<br />

Sealing<br />

Compaction<br />

Loss of soil<br />

biodiversity<br />

Summary<br />

Wind erosion and dust<br />

storms are a problem<br />

throughout the region.<br />

Sand stabilization in<br />

source areas is difficult and<br />

expensive to undertake.<br />

Water erosion can be<br />

controlled with adaptive<br />

management.<br />

Salinization is a widespread<br />

problem in the region due<br />

to the high temperatures,<br />

inappropriate irrigation<br />

practices and sea water<br />

intrusion in coastal<br />

areas. There is adequate<br />

research and technical<br />

knowledge in the region to<br />

counteract the problem.<br />

Socio-economic conditions<br />

hamper widespread<br />

implementation in some<br />

countries.<br />

High temperatures<br />

throughout most of the<br />

region result in a very<br />

high turnover of soil<br />

organic Carbon. SOC<br />

change is sensitive to soil<br />

management changes.<br />

Contamination is locally<br />

a significant problem in<br />

the region particularly<br />

in urbanized areas that<br />

produce waste dumped on<br />

the land<br />

and in oil producing areas.<br />

Substantial expansion of<br />

housing, quarrying and<br />

infrastructures is a<br />

concern. There are no<br />

reliable data on sealing and<br />

land take.<br />

Compaction is a problem<br />

where heavy clay soils are<br />

intensively tilled<br />

(e.g. rainfed and irrigated<br />

Vertisols) and to a lesser<br />

extent is caused<br />

by off-road vehicles.<br />

The extent of loss of soil<br />

biodiversity due to human<br />

impact is largely unknown<br />

in the NENA region.<br />

More studies need to be<br />

undertaken to understand<br />

the scope of the problem.<br />

Condition and Trend<br />

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good<br />

Confidence<br />

In<br />

In trend<br />

condition<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

431<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


<strong>Soil</strong><br />

acidification<br />

Nutrient<br />

imbalance<br />

Waterlogging<br />

Given the dry conditions<br />

throughout most of the<br />

region, acidification<br />

is restricted to some<br />

coastal areas with higher<br />

rainfall.<br />

Nutrient imbalances occur<br />

in areas with continuous<br />

cultivation<br />

where nutrients are lost<br />

in harvested crops and no<br />

engagement in fallowing,<br />

manuring or mineral<br />

fertilizer application.<br />

Waterlogging is a very<br />

localized problem in the<br />

region limited to<br />

flash floods, heavily<br />

irrigated areas and<br />

excessive rise in subsoil<br />

water level.<br />

Table 13.3 Summary of soil threats: Status, trends and uncertainties in the Near East and North Africa<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

432<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


References<br />

Abahussain, A.A., Abdu, A.Sh., Al-Zubari, W.K., El-Deen, N.A. & Abdul Raheem, M. 2002. Desertification<br />

in the Arab region: analysis of current status and trends. J. Arid Environ., 51: 521–545.<br />

Abbaslou, H., Abtahi, A., Peinado, F.J.M., Owliaie, H. & Khormali, F. 2013. Mineralogy and Characteristics<br />

of <strong>Soil</strong>s Developed on Persian Gulf and Oman Sea Basin, Southern Iran: Implications for <strong>Soil</strong> Evolution in<br />

Relation to Sedimentary Parent Material. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 178: 568-584.<br />

Abd Elnaim, E.M., Omran, M.S., Waly, T.M. & E 1 Nashar, B.M.B. 1987. Effects of prolonged sewage<br />

irrigation on some physical properties of sandy soil. Biological Wastes, 22: 269-274.<br />

Abd Elrahman, S.H., Mostafa, M.A.M., Taha, T.A., Elsharawy, M.A.O. & Eid, M.A. 2012. Effect of different<br />

amendments on soil chemical characteristics, grain yield and elemental content of wheat plants grown on<br />

salt-affected soil irrigated with low quality water. Annals Agric. Sci., 57: 175-182.<br />

Abdelfattah, M.A. & Shahid, S. A. 2007. A Comparative characterization and classification of soils in Abu<br />

Dhabi Coastal area in relation to arid and semi-arid conditions using USDA and FAO <strong>Soil</strong> Classification Systems.<br />

Arid Land Res. and Manage., 21: 245-271.<br />

Abdelfattah, M.A. 2012. Land degradation indicators and management options in the desert environment<br />

of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. <strong>Soil</strong> Survey Horizon, 50: 3-10.<br />

Abdelfattah, M.A., Shahid, S.A. & Othman, Y.R. 2008. A model for salinity mapping using remote sensing<br />

and geographic information systems-A case study from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In Forum handbookm<br />

2nd, p. 92. International Salinity Forum Adelaide, Australia.<br />

Abdelfattah, M.A., Shahid, S.A. & Othman, Y.R. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> Salinity Mapping Model Developed Using RS<br />

and GIS – A Case Study from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. European Journal of Scientific Research, 26(3): 342-<br />

351.<br />

Abu Hammad & Bǿrresen, T. 2006. Socioeconomic factors affecting farmers’ perceptions of land<br />

degradation and stonewall terraces in central Palestine. Environ. Manage., 37: 380-394.<br />

Abu Hammad & Tumeizi, A. 2012. Land degradation: Socioeconomic and environmental causes and<br />

consequences in the Mediterranean. Land Degrad. Develop., 23: 216–226.<br />

Abu-Zreig, M. 2006. Control of rainfall-iinduced soil erosion with various types of polyacrylamide. J. <strong>Soil</strong>s<br />

and Sedi., 6: 137-144.<br />

Abu-Zreig, M., Al-Sharif, M. & Amayreh, J. 2007. Erosion control of arid land in Jordan with two anionic<br />

polyacrylamides. Arid Land Res. Manage., 21: 315–328.<br />

Afifi, M.Y., Genead, A.Y., Atta, S.Kh. & Aly, A.A. 1992. Impact of rainfall erosion and management practices<br />

on properties and productivity of Maryut soil. Desert Institute Bulltin Egypt, 42: 173–184.<br />

Afyuni, M., Rezaeinejad, Y. & Schulin, R. 2006. Extractability and plant uptake of Cu, Zn, Pb and Cd from a<br />

sludge-amended Haplargid in Central Iran. Arid Land Res.and Manage., 20: 29-41.<br />

Ajami, M., Khormali, F. & Ayoubi, S. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> quality indexes changes by effects of land-use change in<br />

different slopes of loss land in Western part of Golestan. Iranian journal of Water and <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 39(1): 15-30.<br />

[in Persian]<br />

Akuot Gareng Apiu Anyar. 2006. Land and Environmental degradation in South Kordofan State (Case<br />

study on Dilling area). PhD Thesis. University of Khartoum.<br />

Al Barshamgi, A. 1997. <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> in the UAE. Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Management of<br />

Salt-Affected <strong>Soil</strong>s in the Arab Gulf States. 29 October-2 November, 1997. UAE, Abu-Dhabi.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

433<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Al Karadsheh, E., Akroush, S. & Mazahreh, S. 2012. Land Degradation in Jordan-Review of knowledge resources.<br />

ICARDA.<br />

Al-Amin, N.K.N. 1999. The physical potential of indigenous vegetation and other means to suppress sand movement<br />

in a secondary desertification source area near the White Nile in Gezira region (Sudan). Sudan, Wad-Medani,University<br />

of Gezira. (PhD thesis)<br />

Al-Awadhi, J.M. & Cermak, J. 1998. Sand trap for field measurements of aeolian sand-drift rate in the Kuwaiti<br />

desert. In S. Omar, R. Misak & D. Al-Ajmi,eds. Sustainable Development in Arid Zones, pp. 177–188. Proceedings of<br />

the International Conference on Desert Development in the Arab Gulf Countries, Kuwait. The Netherlands,<br />

Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema<br />

Al-Awadhi, J.M. & Misak, R.F. 2000. Field assessment of aeolian sand processes and sand control measures<br />

in Kuwait. Kuwait J. Sci. & Eng., 27: 156-176.<br />

Al-Awadhi, J.M. 2013. A case assessment of the mechanisms involved in human-induced land degradation<br />

in northeast Kuwait. Land Degrad. Develop., 24: 2–11.<br />

Al-Awadhi, J.M., Al-Helal, A. & Al-Enezi, A. 2005. Sand drift potential in the desert of Kuwait. J. Arid<br />

Environ., 63: 425-438.<br />

Al-Dousari, A. M., Misak, R. & Shahid, S. 2000. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction and sealing in Al-Salmi area, western<br />

Kuwait. Land Degrad. Develop., 11: 401-418.<br />

Al-Eisawi, D. 1998. Medicinal plants and biodiversity. Paper presented at the Workshop on National Biodiversity<br />

Planning, Arabian Gulf University, 12–14 October, 1998, Bahrain. 9 pp.<br />

Al-Harthi, A.A. 2002. Geohazard assessment of sand dunes between Jeddah and Al-Lith, western Saudi<br />

Arabia. Environ. Geology, 42: 360-369.<br />

Al-Hemiary A.M. 1999. Yemeni Experience in the Watershed Management. YEM/97/200. Sana’a ROY.<br />

Al-Hemiary, A.A. 2001. The state of land and water resources in Yemen. Regional Land <strong>Resources</strong> Information<br />

Systems Workshop. Cairo, Egypt 3-6 September, 2001.<br />

Al-Hiba, M. 1997. Improvement of irrigation and drainage systems for soil salinity in the Arab Region. Regional<br />

Workshop on Management of Salt-affected <strong>Soil</strong>s in the Arab Gulf States. Abu-Dhabi, UAE, 29 October-2<br />

November, 1997.<br />

Al-Rajhi, M.A., Seaward, M.R.D. & Al-Aamer, A.S. 1996. Metal levels in indoor and outdoor dust in Riyadh,<br />

Saudi Arabia. Environ. Int., 22: 315-324.<br />

Al Senafy, M.N., Viswanathan, M.N., Senay, Y. & Sumait, A. 1997. <strong>Soil</strong> contamination from oil lakes in<br />

northern Kuwait. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Contamin., 6: 481-494.<br />

Arab Organization for Agricultural Development (AOAD). 2004. Also available at http://www.aoad.org/email_en.htm<br />

Ardö, J. & Olsson, L. 2003. Assessment of soil organic carbon in semi-arid Sudan using GIS and the CENTURY<br />

model. J. Arid Environ., 54: 633-651.<br />

Ardö, J. &. Olsson, L. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration in traditional farming in Sudanese drylands. Environ.<br />

Manage., 33: 318-329.<br />

Asadi, H., Raeisvandi, A., Rrabiei, B. & Ghadiri, H. 2012. Effect of land use and topography on soil properties<br />

and agronomic productivity on calcareous soils of a semiarid region, Iran. Land Degrad. Develop., 23: 496–504.<br />

Ayoub, A.T. 1998. Land degradation, rainfall variability and food production in the Sahelian zone of the<br />

Sudan. Land Degrad. Develop., 10: 489-500.<br />

Azimzadeh, H.R., Ekhtesasib, M.R., Refahic, H.Gh., Rohipourd, H. & Gorji, M. 2008. Wind erosion<br />

measurement on fallow lands of Yazd-Ardakan plain, Iran. Desert, 13: 167-174.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

434<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Badraoui, M. 1998. Effects of intensive cropping under irrigati on on soil quality in Morocco. In Badraoui, ed.<br />

Proceedings of the 16th world Congress of <strong>Soil</strong> Science. B 5-Post Congress tour in Morocco. Rabat, AMSSOL.<br />

Bakheit, S.A. 2011. Availability and Contents of Famine Foods in Northern Darfur. University of Khartoum. (MA<br />

thesis)<br />

Balba, M.T., Al-Daher, Al-Awadhi, N., Chino, H. & Tsuji, H. 1998. Bioremediation of oil-contaminated<br />

desert soil: The Kuwaiti experience. Environ. Int., 24: 163-173.<br />

Bayat, H., Neyshabouri, M.R., Mohammadi, K. & Nariman Zadeh, N. 2011. Estimating water retention<br />

with pedotransfer functions using multiobjective group method of data handling and ANNs. Pedosphere, 21(1):<br />

107–114.<br />

Belaroui, K., Djediai, H. & Megdad, H. 2014. The influence of soil, hydrology, vegetation and climate on<br />

desertification in El-Bayadh region (Algeria). Desalin. Water Treat., 52: 2144-2150.<br />

Belgacem, A.O., Tarhouni, M. & Louhaichi, M. 2013. Effect of protection of Mediterranean arid zone of<br />

southern Tunisai: A case study from Bou Hedma National Park. Land Degrad. Develop., 24: 57-62.<br />

Ben-Mahmoud, R., Mansur, S. & AL-Gomati, A. 2000. Land degradation and desertification in Libya. Land<br />

Degradation and Desertification Research Unit. Libya, Tripoli, Libyan Center for Remote Sensing and Space<br />

Science.<br />

Benmansour, M., Mabit, L., Nouira, A., Moussadek, R., Bouksirate, H. , Duchemin, M. & Benkdad, A. 2013.<br />

Assessment of soil erosion and deposition rates in a Moroccan agricultural field using fallout 137Cs and<br />

210Pbex. J. Environ. Radioact., 115: 97-106.<br />

Besalatpour A, Hajabbasi, M.A., Khoshgoftarmanesh, A.H. & Dorostkar, V. 2011. Land farming process<br />

effects on biochemical properties of petroleum-contaminated soils. <strong>Soil</strong> and Sed. Contamin., 20: 234-248.<br />

Besalatpour, A., Khoshgoftarmanesh, A.H., Hajabbasi, M.A. & Afyuni, M. 2008. Germination and<br />

Growth of Selected Plants in a Petroleum Contaminated Calcareous <strong>Soil</strong>. <strong>Soil</strong> and Sed. Contamin., 17: 665-676.<br />

Bessam, F. & Marbet, R. 2003. Long-term changes in soil organic matter under conventional tillage and<br />

no-tillage systems in semiarid Morocco. <strong>Soil</strong> Use Manag., 19: 139-143.<br />

Ben-Mahmoud, R., Mansur, S. & Al-Gomati, A. 2000. Land degradation and desertification in Libya, Land<br />

Degradation and Desertification Research Unit, Libyan Center for Remote Sensing and Space Science, Tripoli,<br />

Libya.<br />

Biro, K.B., Pradhan, M., Buchroithner & Makeschin, F. 2013. Land use/land cover change analysis and its<br />

impact on soil properties in the northern part of Gadarif region, Sudan. Land Degrad. Develop., 24: 90–102.<br />

Bou Kheir, R., Cerdan, O. & Abdallah, C. 2006. Regional soil erosion risk mapping in Lebanon. Geomorphology,<br />

82: 347–359.<br />

CAMRE/UNEP/ACSAD. 1996. State of Desertification in the Arab Region and the Ways and Means to deal with it.<br />

Council of Arab Ministers Responsible for the Environment (CAMRE), United Nations Environment Programme<br />

(UNEP), Arab Center for Studies of Arid Zones and Drylands (ACSAD). Syria, Damascus.. 444 pp. [in Arabic with<br />

English summary]<br />

Chigani, H.K., Khajeddin, S.J. & Karimzadeh., H.R. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong>-vegetation relationship of three arid land<br />

plant species and their use in rehabilitating degraded sites. Land Degrad. Develop., 23: 92-101.<br />

Dahan, R., Boughlala, M., Mrabet, R., Laamari, A., Balaghi, R. & Lajouad, L. 2012. A review of available<br />

knowledge on land degradation in Morocco. International Center for Agricultural research in the Dry Areas<br />

(ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria.<br />

Darwish, T., Khater, C., Jomaa, I., Stehouwer, R., Shaban, A. & Hamze, M. 2011. Environmental impact of<br />

quaaries on natural resources in Lebanon. Land Degrad. Develop., 22: 345–358.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

435<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Darwish, T.G.F. & Khawlie, M. 2004. Assessing <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation by Landuse-Cover Change in Coastal<br />

Lebanon. Lebanese Sci. J., 5: 45-59.<br />

Dayan, U., Heffter, J., Miller, J. & Gutman, G. 1991. Dust intrusion into the Mediterranean basin. J. Applied<br />

Meteorology, 30: 1185-1199.<br />

Dima, S J. 2006. Land use systems in South Sudan and their impacts on land degradation: A paper presented<br />

at the Conference on Environmental Management Plan in Post Conflict South Sudan, Juba Raha Hotel, 31<br />

October - 03 November 2006.<br />

Dixon, J. & Gulliver, A. 2001. Farming Systems and Poverty. Rome, FAO & Washington, DC, World Bank.<br />

Djavanshir, K., Dasmalchi, H. & Emararty, A. 1996. Ecological and ecophysiological survey on sexual<br />

Euphrate poplar and Athel trees in Iranian deserts. Journal of Biaban, 1: 67–81.<br />

Dregne, H. & Chou, N. 1992. Global desertification dimensions and cost. In H.E. Dregne, ed. Degradation and<br />

Restoration of Arid Lands Texas, pp. 249-282. USA, Texas, Texas University Press.<br />

Dregne, H.E. 2002. Land Degradation in the Drylands. Arid Land Res. Manage., 16: 99-132.<br />

EAD. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> survey of Abu Dhabi Emirate. Vol. 5. United Arab Emirates, Environment Agency Abu Dhabi.<br />

EEAA. 1994. Industrial Wastewater Pollution Abatement in Kafr El-Zayat. Pre- Feasibility Study. Technical<br />

Cooperation Office for the Environment.<br />

El Tahir, B.A., Ahmed, D.M., Ardö, J., Gafaar, A.M. & Salih, A.A. 2008. Changes in soil properties following<br />

conversion of Acacia senegal plantation to other land management systems in North Kordofan State, Sudan.<br />

J. Arid Environ., 73: 499-505.<br />

Elagib, N.A. 2011. Changing rainfall, seasonality and erosivity in the hyper-arid zone of Sudan. Land<br />

Degradation and Development, 22: 505-512.<br />

Elfaig, A., Ibrahim, O. & Jaafar, M. 2015. Environmental degradation in the Sahel: A study from Western<br />

Sudan-ghubaysh area. International Journal of Current Research, 7(2): 12588-12596.<br />

El-Hady, O.A. & Abo-Sedera, S.A. 2006.Conditioning Effect of Composts and Acrylamide Hydrogels on a<br />

Sandy Calcareous <strong>Soil</strong>. II-Physico-bio-chemical Properties of the <strong>Soil</strong>. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 8: 876–884.<br />

Elias, E.A. & Alaily, F. 2002. Effects of long-term irrigation on soluble salts and exchangeable cations in<br />

Vertisols from Gezira. Geograficky Casopis, 54: 343-353.<br />

El-Khole i, A. 2012. Country Study on Status of Land Tenure, Planning and Management in Oriental Near East<br />

Countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for the Near East (RNE),<br />

Oriental Near East Sub-Region (SNO).<br />

El-Tantawi, A.M.M. 2005. Climate Change in Libya and Desertification of Jifara Plain Using Geographical Information<br />

System and Remote Sensing Techniques. der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität. (PhD thesis)<br />

ESCWA. 2007. The Millennium Development Goals in the Arab Region: A youth lens. UN-ESCWA.<br />

Fallahzadeh, J. & Hajabbasi, M.A. 2012a. Land Use change effects on carbohydrate fractions, total and<br />

particulated organic matter of forest soils in central Zagros Mountain, Iran. J. App. Sci., 12: 387-392.<br />

Fallahzadeh, J. & Hajabbasi, M.A. 2012b. The effects of irrigation and cultivation on the quality of desert<br />

soil in central Iran. Land Degrad. Develop., 23: 53-61.<br />

FAO. 1994. Land degradation in South Asia, its severity, causes and effects upon the people. World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Report No. 78. Rome.<br />

FAO. 1997. Regiomal Workshop on Management of Salt-affected <strong>Soil</strong>s in the Arab Gulf States. 29 October-2<br />

November 1995. UAE, Abu-Dhabi.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

436<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


FAO. 2004. Regional Workshop on Promoting LADA Program in western Asia and the Near East. 25-28 July 2004.<br />

Syria, Damascus.<br />

FAO. 2010. Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA). Rome, FAO. (Also available at http://www.fao.<br />

org/nr/lada/)<br />

FAO. 2011. Regional Priority Framework for the Near East. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United<br />

Nations, FAO Regional Office for the Near East.<br />

FAO. 2011a. Pour une évaluation de la degradation des terres en Tunisie. Cadre institutionnel et législatif<br />

Information et données disponibles Etat des connaissances. Ministère de l’Agriculture et des Ressources<br />

Hydrauliques DG/ACTA and FAO (Eds). LADA Country Report. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2011b. Gestion durable des terres en Tunisie – Bonnes pratiques agricoles. LADA Country Report –<br />

Tunisia. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2011c. Manual for Local Level Assessment of Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management.<br />

LADA Technical Report 11 vol. 1 and 2. Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2012. Country Study on Status of Land Tenure, Planning and Management in Oriental Near East Countries.<br />

Rome, FAO.<br />

FAO. 2013. Statistical Analysis of Select Food and Agricultural Indicators for the Near East and North Africa. Rome,<br />

FAO.<br />

FAO. 2013. The 3 rd Regional Multi-Stakeholder Workshop on Food Security and Nutrition. 4-6 November 2013, Tunis,<br />

Tunisia. Egypt, Cairo, Regional Office for the Near East and North Africa, FAO.<br />

Fattahia, E., Noohia, K. & Shiravand, H. 2012. Study of Dust Storm Synoptical Patterns in Southwest of<br />

Iran. DESERT 17 (2012) 49-55<br />

Gibbs, G.K. 1954. Report to the Government of Iraq on <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation. Report No. 242. Rome, FAO.<br />

Golchin, A. & Asgari, H. 2008. Land use effects on soil quality indicators in north-eastern Iran. Australian<br />

Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 46: 27–36.<br />

Goudie, A.S. & Middleton, N.J. 2001. Saharan dust storms: nature and consequences. Earth-Science Reviews,<br />

56: 179-204.<br />

Hajabbasi, M.A., Jalalian, A. & Karimzadeh, H.R. 1997. Deforestation effects on soil physical and chemical<br />

properties, Lordegan, Iran. Plant <strong>Soil</strong>, 190: 301-308.<br />

Halitima, A. 1988. Sols des régions arides. Alger, OPU. 384 pp.<br />

Hamdallah, G. 1997. An overview of the salinity status of the Near East Region. Proceedings of the Regional<br />

Workshop on Management of salt-affected soils in the Persian Gulf Status. 29 October – 2 November 1995.<br />

UAE, Abu Dhabi.<br />

Hamidi, M., Kavianpour 1, M.R. & Shao, Ya. 2013. Synoptic Analysis of Dust Storms in the Middle East. Asia-<br />

Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 49(3): 279-286.<br />

Hejazi, R.F., Hussain, T. & Khan, F.I. 2003. Landfarming operation of oily sludge in arid region: human<br />

health risk assessment. J. Hazard. Mat., 99: 287–302.<br />

Hosseinkhani, H. 2013. Assessment the erosion risk and potential of sedimentation in Shahriar dam<br />

catchment, using GIS techniques and EPM model. Journal of Iran geology, 7(26): 96-87.<br />

Hosseinzade, S.R. Khaneabad, M. & Bargi, M. 2011. Evaluation of wind erosion in the Boshroiye region<br />

since 1975 to 2010. The first national conference of iranian association of geomorphology.<br />

Houyou, Z., Bielders, C.L., Benhorma, H.A., Dellal, A. & Boutmedjet, A. 2014. Evidence of strong land<br />

degradation by wind erosion as a result of rainfed cropping in the Algerian Steppe: A case study at Laghout.<br />

Land Degrad. Develop.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

437<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Hussein, H. 2001. Development of environmental GIS database and its application to desertification study in Middle<br />

East. Japan, Chiba University, Graduate School of Science and Technology. (PhD thesis)<br />

Hussein, M.A. 2008. Costs of environmental degradation: An analysis in the Middle East and North Africa<br />

region. Manag. Environ. Qual., 19: 305-317.<br />

Hussein, M.H. 1998. Water erosion assessment and control in Northern Iraq. <strong>Soil</strong> Till. Res., 45: 161–173.<br />

Ibrahim, M.M. & El-Gaely, G.A. 2012. Short-term effects of dust storm on physiological performance of<br />

some wild plants in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Afric. J. Agric. Res., 7(47): 6305-6312.<br />

Jalali, M. Bahrami, H A. & Darvishi Bolurani, A. 2012. Evaluation of climatic parameters and vegetation<br />

changes in the dust generating regions using satellite imagery. Thesis of MSc soil science, Tarbiat Modares<br />

University. 114 pp.<br />

Jalalian, A., Ghahsareh, A.M. & Karimzadeh, H.R. 1996. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion estimates for some watersheds in Iran. The<br />

First International Conference on Land Degradation 10–14 June. Turkey, Adana.<br />

Jish Prakash, P., Stenchikov, G., Kalenderski, S., Osipov, S. & Bangalath, H. 2014. The impact of dust<br />

storms on the Arabian Peninsula and the Red Sea. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 14: 1918-19245.<br />

Jones, A., Breuning-Madsen, H., Brossard, M., Dampha, A., Deckers, J., Dewitte, O., Gallali, T., Hallett,<br />

S., Jones, R., Kilasara, M., Le Roux, P., Micheli, E., Montanarella, L., Spaargaren, O., Thiombiano, L., Van<br />

Ranst, E., Yemefack, M. & Zougmore R. (eds.). 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas of Africa. Luxembourg, European Commission,<br />

Publications Office of the European Union. 176 pp.<br />

Karam, A. Safarian, A. & Hajjeh Froshnia, S.H., 2010. Estimation and zoning of soil erosion in the Mamlou<br />

catchment (East of Tehran) using the modified universal equation of soil erosion and analytic hierarchy<br />

process. Earth science research, 1(2): 73-86.<br />

Kavian, A. Zabihi, M. Safari, A. & Mohammadi, M.A. 2014. Estimating soil erosion using the universal<br />

soil erosion equation (USLE) (Case study: Watershed of Nekarood). 13th Iranian <strong>Soil</strong> Science Congress. Shahid<br />

Chamran University of Ahvaz.<br />

Khalafa, F.I. & Al-Jimi, D. 1993. Aeolian processes and sand encroachment problems in Kuwait.<br />

Geomorphology, 6: 111-134.<br />

Khresat, S., Al-Bakir, J. & Al-Tahran, R. 2008. Impacts of land use/cover change on soil properties in the<br />

Mediterranean region of northwestern Jordan. Land Degrad. Develop., 19: 397-407.<br />

Khresat, S.A., Rawajfih, Z. & Mohammad, M. 1998. Land degradation in north-western Jordan: causes and<br />

processes. J. Arid Environ., 39: 623–629.<br />

Kobler, M. 2013. Dust storms of Iraq. UN Secretary General for Iraq, A ministerial meeting. Kenya, Nairobi.<br />

(Also available at http://www.term 123.com/dust-storms-of-iraq/#mh 32BcOB 4S6cRkIG.99)<br />

Koocheki, A. 2000. Potential of saltbush (Atriplex spp.) as a fodder shrub for the Arid Lands of Iran. In G.<br />

Gintzburger, M. Bounejmate & A. Nefzaoui, eds. Fodder shrub development in arid and semi-arid zones, pp. 178- 183.<br />

ICARDA.<br />

Lal, R. 2002. Carbon sequestration in dryland ecosystems of West Asia and North Africa. Land Degrad.<br />

Develop., 13: 45–59.<br />

Liniger, H.P. van Lynden, G., Nachtergaele, F., Schwilch, G. & Biancalani, R. 2011. Questionnaire for<br />

mapping land degradation and Sustainable land management (QM). LADA Technical Report # 9. FAO, Rome.<br />

Madany, I.M., Akhter, M.S. & Al-Jowder, O.A. 1994. The correlations between heavy metals in residential<br />

indoor dust and outdoor street dust in Bahrain. Environ. Int., 20: 483-492.<br />

MADRPM. 2000. Atlas de l’Agriculture. Colloque National de l’Agriculture et du Développement Rural. Ministère<br />

de l’Agriculture du Développement Rural et des Pêches Maritimes. Maroc, Rabat.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

438<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Mamdouh Nasr. 1999. Assessing Desertification and Water Harvesting in the Middle East and North Africa: Policy<br />

Implications, ZEF Discussion Papers On Development Policy No. 10. Bonn, Center for Development Research.<br />

59 pp.<br />

Masri, Z. & Ryan, J. 2006. <strong>Soil</strong> organic matter and related physical properties in a Mediterranean wheatbased<br />

rotation trial. <strong>Soil</strong> Till. Res., 87: 146–154.<br />

Mehrshahy, D. & Nakoonam, Z. 2009. Amazing face of wind erosion in Iran deserts. Geography education<br />

development, 88(24): 3-9.<br />

Misak, R.F., Abdel Baki, A.A. & El-Hakim, M.S. 1997. On the causes and control of the waterlogging<br />

phenomenon, Siwa Oasis, northern Western Desert, Egypt. Journal of arid environments, 37(1): 23-32.<br />

Misak, R.F., Al Awadhi J.M., Omar S.A. & Shahid S.A. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> degradation in Kabad area, southwestern<br />

Kuwait City. Land Degradation & Development, 13(5): 403-415.<br />

Misak, R.F., Khalaf, F.I. & Omar, S.A.S. 2009. Managing the hazarads of drought and shifting sands in<br />

dry lands: The cast study of Kuwait. In S.A. Shahid, F.K. Taha & M.A. Abdelfattah, eds. Developments in <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Classification, Land Use Planning and Policy Implications: Innovative Thinking of of <strong>Soil</strong> Inventory for Land Use Planning<br />

and Management of Land <strong>Resources</strong>, pp. 731-752. Springer.<br />

Mohamadzade, M. Charm, M. & Eskandari, M. 2014. Evaluation of land use change effect on sediment<br />

production, using WEPP model. 13th Iranian <strong>Soil</strong> Science Congress. Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.<br />

Mohammed, A.E., Stigter, C.J. & Adam, H.S. 1995. Moving sand and its consequences on and near a<br />

severely desertified environment and a protective shelterbelt. Arid <strong>Soil</strong> Res. Rehabilit., 9: 423-435.<br />

Mohammed, A.E., Stigter, C.J. & Adam, H.S. 1996. On shelterbelt design for combating sand invasion.<br />

Agric., Ecosyst. Environ., 57: 81-90.<br />

Mrabet, R., Ibno-Namr, K., Bessam, F. & Saber, N. 2001. <strong>Soil</strong> chemical quality changes and implications<br />

for fertilizer management after 11-years of no-tillage wheat production systems in semiarid Morocco. Land<br />

Degrad. Develop., 12: 505-517.<br />

Mubarak, A.R. & Nortcliff, S. 2010. Calcium Carbonate Solubilization through H-Proton Release from<br />

some Legumes Grown in Calcareous Saline-Sodic <strong>Soil</strong>. Land Degrad. Develop. 21: 29-39.<br />

Nachtergaele, F. & Petri, M. 2011. Mapping land use systems at global and regional scales for land degradation<br />

assessment analysis. Technical Report No.8. Version 1.1. LADA. FAO.<br />

Naderi, F A., Karimi, H. & Naseri, B., 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion potential zoning in Aseman Abad watershed by<br />

erosion index. Watershed Management Researches Journal, 89: 44-51.<br />

Nael M., Khademi H. & Hajabbasi M.A. 2004. Response of soil quality indicators and their spatial variability<br />

to land degradation in central Iran. Appl. <strong>Soil</strong> Ecol., 27: 221-232.<br />

Naifer, A., Al-Rawahy, S.A. & Zekri, S. 2011. Economic Impact of Salinity: The Case of Al-Batinah in Oman.<br />

Int. J. Agric. Res., 6: 134-142.<br />

NAP. 2002. National Action Plan for Combating Desertification. Egypt, Cairo.<br />

NAP. 2003. Causes and Effects of Desertification. In National Action Programme to Combat Desertification.<br />

Lebanon, Ministry of Agriculture. pp. 99-109.<br />

Nielsen, T.L. & Zöbisch, M.A. 2001. Multi-factorial causes of land-use change: land-use dynamics in the<br />

agro-pastoral village of Im Mial, northwestern Syria. Land Degrad. Develop., 12: 143-161.<br />

Nielsen, T.T. & Adriansen, H.K. 2005. Government policies and land degradation in the Middle East. Land<br />

Degrad. Develop., 16: 151–161.<br />

Omar, S.A.S., Madouh, T., El-Bagouri, I., Al-Mussalem, Z. & Al-Telaihi, H. 1998. Land degradation factors<br />

in arid irrigated areas: the case of Wafra in Kuwait. Land Degrad. Develop., 9: 283-294.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

439<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Poussart, N., Ardö, J. & Olsson, L. 2004. Effects of Data Uncertainties on Estimated <strong>Soil</strong> Organic Carbon in<br />

the Sudan. Environ. Manage., 33: 405-415.<br />

Qadir, M., Qureshi, A.S. & Cheraghi, M.S. 2007. Extent and characterization of Salt-prone land resources<br />

in Iran and strategies for amelioration and management. Land Degrad. Develop., 19: 214-227.<br />

Qadir, M., Qureshi, A.S. & Cheraghi, S.A.M. 2008. Extent and characterisation of salt-affected soils in Iran<br />

and strategies for their amelioration and management. Land Degrad. Develop., 19: 214-227.<br />

Rawajfih, Z., Khersat, S.A. & Buck, B. 2005. Arid soils of the Badia region of northeastern Jordan: Potential<br />

use for sustainable agriculture. Arch. Agron. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 51: 25–32.<br />

Refahi, H. 2004, Wind erosion and its control. Tehran University, Iran. 320 pp.<br />

Sadeghi, S.H.R., Ghaderi Vangah, B. & Safaeeian, N.A. 2007. Comparison between effects of open grazing<br />

and manual harvesting of cultivated summer rangelands of northern Iran on infiltration, runoff and sediment<br />

yield. Land Degrad. Develop., 18: 608–620.<br />

Sallam, A.S., Elwan, A.A. & Rabi, F.H. 1995. Shale Deposits of El‐Farafra Depression (Egypt) as <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Conditioner for Sandy <strong>Soil</strong>s. Arid <strong>Soil</strong> Res. Rehabilit., 9: 209-217.<br />

Schneider, A., Friedl, M.A. & Potere, D. 2009. A new map of global urban extent from MODIS satellite<br />

data. Envir. Res. Lett., 4: 044003.<br />

SCWMRI. 2015. Identification and monitoring of Dust storm in period 1980-2010. <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation and<br />

Watershed Management Research Institute.<br />

SEDENOT. 2000. Sustainable feeding systems through local resources in small farms in the North West of Tunisia.<br />

Inter-University Belgium & Tunisia Co-operation Project.<br />

Shinjo, H., Fujita, H., Gintzbuger, G & Kosaki, T. 2000. Impact of grazing and tillage on water erosion in<br />

northeastern Syria. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Plant Nutr., 46: 151-162.<br />

Shiranpour, B., Bahrami, A. & Shabanpour, M. 2011. Effects of Converting Forest to Tea Garden on <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Fertility in Guilan Province. Water and <strong>Soil</strong> Journal, 26: 826-831.<br />

Siadat, H., Bybordi, M. & Malakouti, M.J. 1997. Salt‐ affected soils of Iran: A country report. International<br />

symposium on Sustainable Management of Salt Affected <strong>Soil</strong>s in the Arid Ecosystem. Egypt, Cairo.<br />

Sohrabi, T. & Zehtabian, G.H. 2012. The role of agriculture in chemical soil degradation of Taleghan. Iranian<br />

Journal of Range and Desert Research, 19(46): 17-31.<br />

Thomas, D.S.G. & Middelton, N.J. 1994. Desertification: exploring the myth. UK, Chichester, Jhon Willey &<br />

Sons Ltd. 194 pp.<br />

Tork Nejad, A. & Koocheki, A. 2000. Economic aspects of fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) in Iran.<br />

In G. Gintzburger, M. Bounejmate, & A. Nefzaoui, eds. Fodder Shrub Development in Arid and Semiarid Zones. Vol. 1,<br />

pp. 184–186. Aleppo, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).<br />

University of Tehran. 2013. External dust storm sources report. Geoinformatic Institute, University of Tehran.<br />

Vaezi, A.R. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation and Wheat Yield in Dry-Farming Lands in A Semi-Arid Region. Iran.<br />

Varamesh, S., Hosseini S.M., Abdi, N. & Akbarinia, M. 2010. Effects of afforestation on soil carbon<br />

sequestration in an urban forest of arid zone in Chitgar forest park of Tehran. Nauka za Gorata, 47(3): 75–90.<br />

Wassif, M.M., Atta, S.Kh. & Tadros, S.F. 1995. Water erosion of calcareous soil and its productivity under<br />

rainfed agriculture of Egypt. Egypt. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 35: 15–31.<br />

Wiebe, K. 2003. Linking Land Quality, Agricultural Productivity and Food Security. Agricultural Economic Report<br />

No. 823. Department of Agriculture, Resource Economics Division. USA, Economic Research Service.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

440<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


Yaghi, B. & Abdul-Wahab, S.A. 2004. Levels of heavy metals in outdoor and indoor dusts in Muscat, Oman.<br />

Int. J. Environ. Stud., 61: 307-314.<br />

Yazdani Nejad, F. & Torabi Gol Sefidi, H. 2013. Evaluation of Spatial variability and zoning of salinity in<br />

agricultural land in south of Tehran, using kriging and GIS. <strong>Soil</strong> and Water Research of Iran, 44(3): 255-262.<br />

Yigini, Y., Panagos, P. & Montanarella, L. (eds). 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> of Mediterranean and Caucasus<br />

Countries. JRC Technical Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.<br />

Zahreddine, H.G., Barker, D.J., Quigley, M.F., Sleem, K. & Struve, D.K. 2007. Patterns of woody plant<br />

species diversity in Lebanon as affected by climatic and soil properties. Lebanese Sci. J., 8: 21-44.<br />

Zare Bideki, R. & Badri, B. 2014. Zoning of flood potential in the Pardingan basin of Chaharmahal Bakhtiari<br />

province. 13th Iranian <strong>Soil</strong> Science Congress. Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.<br />

Zomorodian, M.J. & Rahimi, R. 2012. Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Erosion on Southern River<br />

Basins Adjacent to Mashhad and its Environmental Impact. Geography and Development 10nd Year - No. 28:<br />

44-46<br />

Zurayk, R., El-Awar, F., Hamadeh, S., Talhouk, S., Sayegh, C., Chehab, A. & Al Shab, K. 2001. Using<br />

indigenous knowledge in land use investigations: a participatory study in a semi-arid mountainous region of<br />

Lebanon. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ., 86: 247–262.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

441<br />

in the Near East and North Africa


14 | Regional Assessment<br />

of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes in North America<br />

Regional Coordinator: Hempel, J. (ITPS/United States)<br />

Regional Lead Author: D. Pennock (ITPS/Canada)<br />

Contributing Authors: Adams, M-B. (United States), Basiliko, N. (Canada), Bedard-Haughn, A. (Canada),<br />

Bock, M. (Canada), Cerkowniak, D. (Canada), Cruse, R. (United States), Dabney, S. (United States), Daniels,<br />

L. (United States), Drury, C. (Canada), Fanning, D. (United States), Flanagan, D. (United States), Grayston, S.<br />

(Canada), Harrison, R. (United States), Hempel, J. (ITPS/United States), Lobb, D. (Canada), Parikh, S. (United<br />

States), Reid, D.K. (Canada), Sheppard, S. (Canada), Smith, C.A.S. (Canada), Watmough, S. (Canada).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

442<br />

in North America


14.1 | Introduction<br />

Although Canada and the United States of America have a long history of collaborative research activity in<br />

soil science, there have been no previous attempts at a regional assessment of threats to soil functions. Nor<br />

are there any ongoing institutional arrangements that coordinate soil assessment or management across the<br />

two countries, unlike trans-border water issues – which are adjudicated by an International Joint Commission<br />

– or atmospheric issues, such as when cross-border problems with acidification were the focus of the Air<br />

Quality Agreement of 1991. Cross-border coordination is further complicated by the lack of a common soil<br />

classification system between the two countries.<br />

In the absence of a regional reporting system for threats to soil functions, this chapter draws on the<br />

appropriate national reporting systems and on the expertise of leading soil scientists where national<br />

assessments do not exist.<br />

The main data source used for Canada is the Agri-Environmental Indicators report series, which was<br />

developed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). This series began in 1993 with the intent of producing<br />

science-based environmental indicators specific to the agriculture and agri-food sector. The work presented<br />

in this chapter is drawn from the forthcoming 4th Agri-Environmental Indicators report (Clearwater et al.,<br />

2015). The series estimates change in the indicators in five-year periods beginning (for most indicators) in<br />

1981. Indicators that assess primary agriculture are calculated using mathematical models or formulas that<br />

integrate information on soil, climate and landscape, mainly derived from the <strong>Soil</strong> Landscapes of Canada (SLC)<br />

(<strong>Soil</strong> Landscapes of Canada Working Group, 2007), with information on crops, land use, land management<br />

and livestock from the Census of Agriculture and other custom data sets from provincial agencies, the private<br />

sector, remote sensing, etc. Information on the specific indicators is available in AAFC (2013).<br />

The 4th Agri-Environmental Indicators report provides information for soil erosion, change in SOC, and<br />

nutrient imbalance, and this information is featured in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of this chapter. Leading Canadian<br />

scientists selected by the Canadian Society of <strong>Soil</strong> Science provided information on the remaining threats.<br />

The major information source used for the United States is the National <strong>Resources</strong> Inventory (USDA,<br />

2013a). This report provides a range of land use and management statistics and national estimates for sheet<br />

and rill erosion and for wind erosion. The report provides data for the period 1982-2010. Data are gathered<br />

annually by the National <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Agency and major reports are released at five-year intervals.<br />

Information on specific threats such as salinization was also provided by the STATSGO 2<br />

database (<strong>Soil</strong> Survey<br />

Staff, 2014). Leading United States soil scientists selected by the <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America also provided<br />

information for the United States.<br />

14.2 | Regional stratification and soil threats<br />

14.2.1 | Regional stratification and land cover<br />

The spatial framework used in this chapter is the multi-level Ecological Regions of North America developed<br />

by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 1997). The<br />

Level II ecoregions are used as a consistent geographical reference (Figure 14.1).<br />

The contiguous 48 United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands cover almost<br />

88 Bha of land and water. About 71 percent of this area is non-Federal rural land – nearly 57 billion ha (USDA,<br />

2013a). The non-Federal rural lands of the United States are predominantly rangeland (165 million ha), forest<br />

land (166 million ha), and cropland (146 million ha) with smaller areas composed of developed land, pastureland<br />

and water.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

443<br />

in North America


Rangeland is dominant in the western half of the United States in the Cold Deserts, Warm Deserts, Great<br />

Plains, South Central Semi-Arid Prairies and Western Cordillera ecoregions. Forest is the dominant land cover<br />

in the northwest, north central and eastern one-third of the country, in the Western Cordillera, Mixed Wood<br />

Plains, Ozark, Ouachita-Appalachian Forests ecoregions.<br />

Cropland is the dominant land cover in the Central United States Plains, South Eastern United States Plains,<br />

the Mississippi Alluvial and Southeast United States coastal plains, Temperate Prairies, West Central Semi-<br />

Arid Prairies, South Central Semi-Arid Prairies and Mediterranean California ecoregions.<br />

Cropland in the United States increased by about 1 million ha from 2007 to 2010, following a steady decline<br />

in area in the previous 25 years. These gains can be attributed to land withdrawn from the Conservation<br />

Reserve Program as grain prices reached near-record levels. This led to an increased threat to the soil resource<br />

from erosion and loss of terrestrial C. The National <strong>Resources</strong> Inventory tracks the cropland area for specific<br />

conservation measures such as terracing. However, according to the Conservation Technology Information<br />

Center there has not been a national survey of crop residue management practices since 2004; at that time<br />

45.6 million ha was in conservation tillage out of a total of 112 million ha of cropland (Conservation Technology<br />

Information Center, 2014).<br />

Total farmland in Canada increased from 1981 (65.9 million ha) to 2006 (67.6 million ha) (all values from<br />

AAFC, 2013). The largest agricultural region (54.7 million ha) occurs in the Temperate Prairies and West-Central<br />

Semi-Arid Prairies ecoregions in southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. In 2006 approximately 29<br />

million ha of farmland in this region was cropped, primarily to cereal grains, oilseeds and pulse crops, and 18<br />

million ha was in pasture. Approximately 1.4 million ha was in tillage summer fallow, where land is fallowed<br />

during the growing season with weed suppression by one or more tillage operations. The area under tillage<br />

summer fallow has declined greatly from 5.3 million ha in 1991 and this decline has reduced soil degradation in<br />

this region.<br />

Farmland in Ontario and Quebec (8.9 million ha) is concentrated in the Mixed Wood Plains ecozone. In 2006<br />

5.6 million ha of this was cropped, primarily to forages, maize, cereal grains, and oilseeds (soybeans). The area<br />

of pastures in this region has declined from 1.7 million ha in 1991 to 1.1 million ha in 2006. Tillage practices in<br />

this region have also undergone a major shift, with the percentage of cropland under conventional tillage<br />

decreasing from 80 percent in 1991 to 50 percent in 2006, and conservation tillage and no-tillage increasing<br />

from 16 percent to 26 percent and from 4 percent to 24 percent respectively over the same period.<br />

Farmland in British Columbia (2.8 million ha in 2006) is dominated by forage production and pasture<br />

dispersed through the Western Cordillera and Cold Desert ecoregions. Finally the Atlantic Highlands and<br />

Mixed Wood Plains ecoregions in Atlantic Canada have 1.1 million ha of farmland, dominantly in forages but<br />

with significant areas of potato production in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.<br />

Overall the greatest shift in Canadian agriculture has been the adoption of no-till and reduced tillage<br />

systems. The 2011 Census of Agriculture (Statistics Canada, 2015) reports that of 29.6 million ha seeded in 2011,<br />

16.7 million ha were in no-till and a further 7.2 million ha were in tillage systems that left most residue on the<br />

soil surface; only 5.6 million ha were in conventional tillage e.g. with most residue turned into the soil.<br />

Wetlands are extensive in both Canada and the United States and are subject to considerable alteration by<br />

human activity. Bridgham et al. (2006) estimate that the historical area of wetlands in Canada of 150 million<br />

ha has been reduced to 130 million ha by land-use conversion. In the contiguous United States, the same study<br />

estimated a reduction from 90 million ha historically to current levels of 43 million ha.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

444<br />

in North America


The area of forested land in Canada is estimated at 348 million ha (Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Canada, 2012). Forest<br />

is the dominant land cover in the Northern Forests, Boreal Plain, Boreal Cordillera, Western Cordillera and<br />

Marine West Coast Forest ecoregions. Forest harvest activity has decreased in the period from 2004, and<br />

approximately 0.7 million ha were harvested in 2010 (Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Canada, 2012). Canada’s National<br />

Forest Inventory shows that gross deforestation rates were typically in the order of 64 400 ha yr -1 circa 1990,<br />

and decreased to 44 800 ha yr -1 by 2010, corresponding to about 0.02 percent of Canada’s forest area (Natural<br />

<strong>Resources</strong> Canada, 2012). Deforestation minus afforestation (according to UNFCCC definitions) amounts to<br />

a net loss of 35 000 ha yr -1 . Overall, there is a definite decrease in total deforestation rate from the 1990s to<br />

present, which is expected to continue in coming years, but at a lower rate of decrease (Masek et al., 2011).<br />

The expansion of agriculture is the largest source of forest conversion, accounting for two thirds of gross<br />

deforestation. Urban and industrial development is the next largest driver at approximately 17 percent,<br />

followed by forestry at half that rate. The Boreal Plains ecozone spanning central Alberta, Saskatchewan,<br />

and Manitoba (generally termed the Prairie provinces) was the dominant location of deforestation over the<br />

1990–2008 time period, contributing just under half the nation’s deforestation for most years, largely due to<br />

agricultural conversion (Masek et al., 2011).<br />

The Tundra (233 million ha), Taiga (200 million ha) and Arctic Cordillera (21.7 million ha) ecoregions are<br />

vulnerable to effects of climate change. Permafrost soils in these regions are estimated to contain 39 percent<br />

of all organic C in Canada (Tarnocai and Bockheim 2011) and hence the interaction of soils and climate in these<br />

regions is a major concern.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

445<br />

in North America


Figure 14.1 Level II Ecological regions of North America. Source: Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 1997.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

446<br />

in North America


14.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> threats<br />

This section focuses on the status and trends for six threats to soil functioning: acidification, contamination,<br />

salinization, sealing/capping, compaction, and waterlogging. Four threats that are judged to be the most<br />

serious (erosion, nutrient imbalance, carbon change, and soil biodiversity) are discussed in greater detail in<br />

the following section.<br />

14.3.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification<br />

While many native forest communities are well-adapted to strongly acidic (pH < 5.5) soil conditions, most<br />

managed agricultural and horticultural plants suffer from enhanced metal phytotoxicity (Al, Fe, Mn, etc.),<br />

reduced N and P availability, and decreased microbiological activity because soils have become acidified<br />

below their optimum range. Excessive soil acidification also poses environmental risks of enhanced surface<br />

water acidification, sediment losses due to loss of vegetation, and increased loadings of soluble metals into<br />

groundwater. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification is enhanced by a range of anthropogenic effects, including excessive inputs of<br />

acidic atmospheric deposition, intensive removal of aboveground biomass, and exposure of sulfidic materials<br />

by mining, construction, dredging, and other disturbances.<br />

Acidic deposition from rain that has low pH and significant amounts of sulphate and nitrate contributes<br />

to base cation depletion and soil acidification in industrialized regions of the world (Meinz and Seip, 2004).<br />

These effects, however, have been documented only rarely in the United States. Coarse-textured soils in highaltitude<br />

forests that were originally low in pH and base saturation are particularly susceptible to degradation<br />

and loss of function. Finer-textured and more highly buffered soils are much more resistant to the negative<br />

effects of acidic deposition. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 resulted in significant declines in sulphate<br />

emissions (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ntn/), although emissions of nitrogen oxides have remained elevated due to<br />

transportation and agricultural sources. Some lakes in the Adirondacks have shown significant improvement<br />

in water quality as a result of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Research by Driscoll et al. (2001) has shown,<br />

however, that tighter controls on atmospheric emissions will be needed if soil and stream chemistry in this<br />

region is to return to pre-industrial levels in a reasonable time range. Alternatively, aerial application of calcium<br />

sources such as wollastonite (CaSiO 3<br />

) to acidifed catchments can accelerate the return of base saturation to<br />

pre-industrial levels (Johnson et al., 2014). However, the widespread applicability of this reclamation approach<br />

is limited. Localized, highly acidic deposition from heavy metal smelter and other industrial facilities also<br />

impacted large areas of land such as the Copper Basin in Tennessee, where many square miles of land were<br />

denuded by open air smelting of metal sulphide ores. Current concerns centre on the effects on soil fertility<br />

and acidification from the interaction between intensive biomass harvesting and acidic deposition on forest<br />

soils (Adams et al., 2000).<br />

Sulfidic materials (as defined by <strong>Soil</strong> Taxonomy (<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff, 1999)) are routinely exposed by mining,<br />

construction, and dredging activities. This exposure can rapidly lower the pH of local soils and water to < 4.0<br />

via sulfuricization processes (Kittrick, Fanning and Hossner, 1982). While most active mining operations now<br />

isolate sulfidic materials from contact with groundwater and surface water via the application of appropriate<br />

acid-base accounting procedures (Skousen et al., 2002), construction-related impacts have become<br />

increasingly common since the 1970s due to larger scale excavations and the construction industry’s lack of<br />

recognition of risk (Fanning et al., 2004; Orndorff and Daniels, 2004). Once exposed, sulfidic materials require<br />

large inputs of liming agents (e.g. ~ 31 Mg of agricultural lime per 1000 Mg material for 1 percent pyritic-S) to<br />

become properly neutralized and stabilized.<br />

In Canada, the major risks associated with soil acidification occur in forested areas. As in the United States,<br />

areas most at risk from acidification are in regions dominated by coarse-textured soils that have low base<br />

cation weathering rates and that receive high levels of acid deposition (Ouimet at al., 2006). These areas<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

447<br />

in North America


of coarse-textured soils include much of the Softwood Shield and Mixed Wood Shield ecoregions and the<br />

southern, coastal parts of British Columbia (Aherne and Posch, 2013) in regions where glacial parent materials<br />

were derived from igneous rocks. Both the loss of essential base cations and the mobilization of metals such as<br />

Al and Mn can have adverse impacts on forest vegetation. It has been proposed that the ratio of base cations or<br />

Ca to Al (e.g. base cations (BC/Al or Ca/Al) in soil solution is a useful indicator of the potential risk to trees from<br />

soil acidification (Cronan and Grigal, 1995; Sverdrup and Warfvinge, 1993). Critical loads are also increasingly<br />

used to estimate the risk of soil acidification (Whitfield et al., 2010).<br />

Aherne and Posch (2013) estimated critical loads for acid deposition for upland forest soils in Canada (~2 600<br />

000 km 2 ). They reported that in 2006, because of acid deposition levels, 4.5 percent of the mapped area (~100<br />

000 km 2 ) was at risk based on a BC/Al ratio of 1.0; and 20.3 percent (~500 000 km 2 ) of the area was at risk<br />

based on a BC/Al ratio of 10.0. Exceedance of the critical load was primarily driven by elevated anthropogenic<br />

emissions from large point sources, such as the activities in the Athabasca Oil Sands region and in ore smelting<br />

near Sudbury, Ontario. In addition, exceedance in central and eastern Canada was associated with long-range<br />

(transboundary) air pollution and emissions from shipping along the St. Lawrence River.<br />

In Canada, national emissions of SO 2<br />

and NOx decreased by 21 percent and 3 percent, respectively, between<br />

2008 and 2010 (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2103). This decrease reduces the<br />

risk of soil acidification in Canada. Emission reductions, however, vary by province. The bulk of the reduction<br />

in SO 2<br />

and NOx emissions has been in Ontario in central Canada. Minimal decreases or even increases in<br />

emissions, associated primarily with the oil and gas industry (CCME, 2013), have occurred in British Columbia<br />

and Alberta in western Canada. Currently, the risk of soil acidification caused by acid deposition is generally<br />

decreasing over much of eastern Canada but is unchanged or increasing in parts of western provinces, such as<br />

Alberta and British Columbia.<br />

14.3.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s can be compromised via industrial, mining, municipal, residential and agricultural activities. In North<br />

America, metals (Pb, Cd, Cr and As), salts (Na and K), pesticides (herbicides and insecticides), pathogens<br />

and nutrients (N and P) contaminate soils to varying degrees and with great spatial variation. There are also<br />

chemicals of emerging concern, including engineered nanoparticles, pharmaceuticals and personal care<br />

products. Perfluorinated compounds are also of concern: they occur in small concentrations but, because of<br />

their high reactivity or potential to be endocrine disrupting, they may pose significant risks to human health<br />

and the environment.<br />

In the United States, there are thousands of organic- and metal-contaminated sites of varied scope<br />

and significance. To address, monitor and remediate the myriad of sites, the United States Environmental<br />

Protection Agency oversees the Superfund programme, which is charged with the clean-up of the nation’s<br />

hazardous waste sites. This effort follows the National Priorities List (NPL), which defines the known releases<br />

or threatened releases of contaminants in the United States and its territories (EPA, 2014a). As of 29 September<br />

2014, there are 1 322 final sites on the NPL with 1 163 having completed measures to address the contamination<br />

threat and an additional 49 proposed sites (Figure 14.2). In addition, there are vast areas of low-level soil<br />

contamination across the United States which are not monitored by the EPA.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

448<br />

in North America


Figure 14.2 Map of Superfund sites in the contiguous United States Yellow indicates final EPA National Priorities List sites and red<br />

indicates proposed sites. Source: EPA, 2014a.<br />

In Canada, because it has a huge expanse of soil and a relatively small population, soil contamination in<br />

a spatial context is a relatively minor issue. However, the most agriculturally productive soils and greatest<br />

density of population and industry occur concomitantly along the narrow region close to the southern border.<br />

This is also the region where there is the greatest potential for soil contamination. In addition, the hinterland<br />

has widely dispersed petroleum and mineral resource industries that form hot spots of soil contamination<br />

(Doyle et al., 2003).<br />

More insidious is non‐ point‐ source, dispersed contamination (Chan et al., 1986). For example, field crop<br />

soils surveyed throughout the Mixed Wood Plains ecoregions of southern Ontario in Canada showed elevated<br />

levels of Ba, Cd, Mo, Pb, Sb, Se, Nb, U and Zn, which were speculatively attributed to non‐ specific urban sources<br />

such as road dust (Sheppard et al., 2009). Watmough and Hutchinson (2004) came to a similar conclusion<br />

about Pb in forest soils of Southern Ontario. Toxicity in soil from such sources, however, is a relatively remote<br />

possibility.<br />

There is concern about soil contamination by agricultural activities, especially as farms increase in size<br />

and effectively become industrial point sources. For example, soils in areas of livestock facilities have been<br />

found to have metal levels that exceed Canadian soil quality guidelines (Sheppard and Sanipelli, 2012). Some of<br />

these metals came from livestock pharmaceuticals (e.g. Bi in teat dips). The contribution of livestock manures<br />

containing antibiotic residues to the development of antibiotic-resistant genes in the environment is a growing<br />

public concern. In a few cases, the naturally occurring, trace element bioavailability of some Canadian soils<br />

has resulted in food crops with amount of elements that exceed guideline concentrations. The most notable<br />

are spatially isolated cases of Cd in durum wheat and sunflowers (Grant et al., 1998).<br />

As industrialization and urbanization increase, concomitant with increased agricultural activities in<br />

decreasing land areas, the potential for soil contamination remains an important issue. Although soil<br />

contaminants in the United States and Canada are ubiquitous in areas close to human populations, the<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

449<br />

in North America


specific threats posed by these contaminants to human health and environmental quality are not well defined.<br />

There is a need for improvements in assessments of soil contamination to better protect human health and<br />

environmental quality and ensure food safety and security.<br />

14.3.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> salinization<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> salinization is a serious threat to the ecosystem services provided by the soil resource with regard to<br />

food and fibre production in many parts of North America. The movement and accumulation of salts that<br />

cause saline conditions in the soil are affected by the soil water balance. Processes such as climate shifts,<br />

improper irrigation and drainage, farming and management practices affect this balance. <strong>Soil</strong> salinity is a<br />

dynamic soil condition and can spread or become more severe in areas that are already saline, especially if the<br />

land is not managed properly.<br />

These concerns are especially prevalent in the western portions of the United States (Figure 14.3) (<strong>Soil</strong> Survey<br />

Staff, 2014). Similar threats to food and fibre production are also associated with sodic conditions in the soil. In<br />

the United States, saline soils occupy approximately 2.2 million ha of cropland and another 31 million ha are at<br />

risk of becoming saline (USDA, 2011).<br />

In Canada, a Risk of <strong>Soil</strong> Salinization (RSS) Indicator has been developed as part of the Agri-Environmental<br />

Indicators programme to assess the state and trend of the risk of dryland soil salinization on the Canadian<br />

Prairies as a result of changing land use and management practices. Two of the primary conditions required<br />

for dryland salinization - water deficits and an inherent salt content in the soil and/or groundwater - occur to<br />

a significant extent only in the Prairie region of Canada. The risk of salinization on other agricultural lands in<br />

Canada is negligible. The risk of soil sodicity is not assessed as part of this index and is not believed to be a major<br />

risk in western Canada. The RSS is derived by calculating a unit-less Salinity Risk Index (SRI) which considers<br />

a combination of factors that control or influence the salinization process (Wiebe, Eilers and Brierley, 2010).<br />

In terms of the state of soil salinity in Canada, approximately 1 M ha of surface soils on the Prairies are<br />

affected by moderate to severe soil salinity (Wiebe, Eilers and Brierley, 2006). In 2011, 85 percent of the land<br />

area in the agricultural region of the Canadian Prairies was rated as having a very low risk of salinization<br />

(Figure 14.4).<br />

From 1981 to 2011, the trend has been a 19 percent increase in the land area in the Very Low and Low<br />

risk classes. Over the same 30-year period, the land area in the Moderate, High and Very High risk classes<br />

decreased from 15 percent to 8 percent. These improvements were largely attributed to the reduction in tillage<br />

summer fallow, mentioned above, and to a 4.8 million ha increase of permanent cover (a 14 percent increase<br />

from 1981 to 2011). A reduction in risk has been observed in all Prairie provinces. The greatest decline was<br />

recorded in Saskatchewan, where the area of summer fallow decreased by more than 5 million ha and the<br />

area of permanent cover increased by more than 3 million ha. Changes in land use and management practices<br />

have reduced the risk of salinization and indicate a trend towards improved soil health and agri-environmental<br />

sustainability.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

450<br />

in North America


Figure 14.3 Areas in United States threatened by salinization and sodification. Source: NRCS 1<br />

1 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/national/home/<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

451<br />

in North America


Figure 14.4 Risk of soil salinization in Canada 2011. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015.<br />

14.3.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> sealing/capping<br />

The population of North America is approximately 5 percent of the world population (340 million) and it has<br />

been growing at a rate of 0.9 percent a year, during the last decade. In the United States, the threat of loss of<br />

soil due to soil sealing and capping consequent on expansion of settlements and infrastructure is significant<br />

and has been steadily increasing since 1982, as documented by the USDA Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation<br />

Service’s National <strong>Resources</strong> Inventory Program (NRI) (USDA, 2013a). Between 1982 and 2007, it is estimated<br />

that 16.5 million ha of land were developed for urban or transportation uses. By 2007, the United States had<br />

an estimated total of 45 million ha developed into urban uses. Of the newly developed land, 41 percent was<br />

previously forest land, 27 percent was cropland, 17 percent was pasture, and 13 percent was rangeland. In regard<br />

to land categories, 35 percent of the land in the United States that was developed into urban uses during the<br />

period of 1982 to 2007 was classified as prime farmland. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination<br />

of soil physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fibre and oilseed crops and has<br />

the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields<br />

of crops when treated and managed at high levels. Prime farmland is also the most economically viable land<br />

to develop as it typically has the lowest degree of limitations for conversion into urban development. This<br />

increases the pressure on land with the best soil. Using the 2007 NRI information as a base, the trajectory of<br />

prime farmland (cropland portion) conversion and the loss of potential food production is immense over the<br />

next 25 years. With this rate of loss, the United States will lose the equivalent of 10M metric tonnes of corn in<br />

2022 due to sealing/capping activities.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

452<br />

in North America


The drivers for soil sealing in Canada are very similar to those in the United States. The growth of metropolitan<br />

centers has been particularly rapid since the 1990s in areas surrounding Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, Ottawa,<br />

and Vancouver and, most recently, in areas surrounding urban centers in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Between<br />

1996 and 2006, urban land increased by more than 10 percent nationally. It now totals nearly 0.13 million ha<br />

(Statistics Canada, 2009), or 0.25 percent of the total land area in Canada. Given land-cover data extrapolated<br />

from a suburban United States city (specifically, San Jose with 59 percent impervious surface by area (Xiao et<br />

al., 2013) and the fact that suburbs now make up the majority of Canada’s metropolitan population (Gordon<br />

and Janzen, 2013), it is estimated that more than 1 300 km 2 of soil was capped through urban expansion<br />

between the 1990s and 2000s. It is noteworthy that this expansion has occurred largely on highly productive<br />

soils (Francis et al., 2012; Hofmann, Filoso and Schofield, 2005). Major interregional highway construction<br />

and expansion (e.g. highway twinning) have also been ongoing, particularly in Ontario, British Columbia, and<br />

Alberta. Total road length (in two lane equivalents) in Canada increased by more than 17 percent between<br />

1990 and 2009 (Transport Canada, 2012; United States Department of Transportation, 2014), and, assuming<br />

a conservative average road width of 10 m, roads now cover more than 10 000 km 2 . However, it is important<br />

to note that a portion of this impervious area is also included in the estimated urban area described above.<br />

In the past few decades, areas used for agriculture and forest harvest have decreased (Natural <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Canada, 2014; Francis et al., 2012; Hofmann et al., 2005). Thus, it is assumed that sealing as a result of new<br />

construction for agriculture service and forest industrial roads is relatively minor. The overall existing extent of<br />

unpaved roads in Canada that serve the needs of these industries is substantial.<br />

14.3.5 | <strong>Soil</strong> compaction<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction is an acknowledged threat to the ability of the soil resource to provide a wide range of<br />

essential ecosystem services, including food and fibre production and maintenance of good water quality.<br />

Compaction decreases the water infiltration capacity of the soil, increases runoff and erosion, reduces plant<br />

growth, and reduces the penetration, size, and distribution of roots. It restricts water and air movement in<br />

the soil. It also causes nutrient stresses and slow seedling emergence. <strong>Soil</strong>s in North America that are most<br />

susceptible to the threat of compaction are located in managed agricultural and forested regions.<br />

The most common cause of soil compaction (or the formation of hardpans) is agricultural traffic, including<br />

tractors, harvesting equipment and implement wheels on moist soils where soil moisture is at or above field<br />

capacity. Wheeled traffic compacts soil aggregates, in some cases destroying the aggregates completely,<br />

which results in a dense soil with few large pores and limited aeration. Compaction can reduce yields up to<br />

50 percent in some areas, depending upon the depth of compaction and its severity (Wolkowski and Lowery,<br />

2008).<br />

The type and condition of a soil have an effect on the potential of compaction to occur. <strong>Soil</strong>s low in organic<br />

matter tend to be more susceptible to compaction because their ability to form strong aggregates is decreased.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s high in clay content compact more easily because clay particles adhere to water, which makes it easier<br />

for them to move against each other. In the United States, Ultisols in the Coastal Southeast United States<br />

Coastal Plains ecozone are especially susceptible to compaction due to their highly weathered state and low<br />

organic carbon levels (Simoes et al., 2009).<br />

In Canada, there has not been a national-scale assessment of compaction since McBride, Joosse and Wall,<br />

(2000). Generally, fine-textured soils in the Mixed Wood Plains ecozone under cropping systems with a high<br />

potential for soil structure degradation and compaction (e.g. those for the production of maize, soybeans,<br />

vegetable and root crops) were judged to have the highest risk of compaction. In the period from 1981 to 1996,<br />

the area of fine-textured soils under high-risk cropping practices grew substantially (e.g. by as much as 61<br />

percent in Ontario). This area expansion of potentially compaction-inducing cropping practices has continued<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

453<br />

in North America


to the present day. Agricultural soils in western Canada and the United States are generally believed to have<br />

a lower risk for soil compaction. The exception is irrigated soil in this region, where the wetter soil conditions<br />

can contribute to higher compaction levels. In addition, adoption of conservation tillage, which limits<br />

compaction, has also been lower on irrigated land.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> compaction also occurs in forestry operations throughout Canada and the United States, especially<br />

where roads and landings have been constructed. Generally, finer-textured soils are at the greatest risk,<br />

but the amount of organic matter in coarser textured soils can form a strong negative relationship with the<br />

potential for compaction (Krzic et al., 2004). Compaction has been shown to reduce regeneration of species<br />

such as aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) and white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss) (Kabzems, 2012),<br />

but little is known about its general impact on soil functions.<br />

14.3.6 | Waterlogging and wetlands<br />

The threat of waterlogging to the sustainable use of soil resources is difficult to assess because waterlogging<br />

is not considered a threat in all cases. Wetland areas that are nearly or permanently waterlogged provide many<br />

positive benefits to the environment. Wetlands are some of the most biologically diverse habitats on earth and<br />

are of great benefit to many species of wildlife. They also act as a filter, trap sediments, improve water quality,<br />

are a carbon sink, and reduce peaks of floodwater runoff. Until 2014, the Wetland Reserve Program in the<br />

United States was a voluntary programme offered to landowners to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands<br />

on their property. Nearly 1 million ha has been enrolled in this programme (USDA, 2014).<br />

Much of the drainage of wetlands in North America has been concentrated on freshwater mineral wetlands<br />

(Bridgham et al., 2006), which are wetlands dominated by Gleysolic soils rather than organic soils. Bridgham<br />

et al. (2006) estimate that both the United States and Canada have experienced over 50 percent conversion of<br />

this class of wetlands (e.g. a reduction from 36 million ha to 16 million ha in Canada and from 76 million ha to<br />

31 million ha in the United States).<br />

In North America, the primary driver of large-scale waterlogging on non-wetland soils is flooding due to<br />

dam construction for hydroelectric power, to flood control measures and to mining activities (Maynard et al.,<br />

2014). This includes both upstream flooding associated with dam construction and high spring water levels<br />

and downstream flooding associated with controlled releases during high-water periods and for hydroelectric<br />

power generation during the winter.<br />

Another indirect driver is deforestation, which can reduce infiltration and/or evapotranspiration. It has<br />

been proposed that reduced evapotranspiration in northern Alberta contributes to a significant rise in the<br />

water table when deforestation is coupled with wet climatic periods (Carrera-Hernandez et al., 2011).<br />

Concern about waterlogging has been growing due to the substantial increase in the frequency and severity<br />

of extreme precipitation events in recent years in some regions (Brimelow et al., 2014), even though this may<br />

not indicate an overall increase in mean annual precipitation for most regions. Waterlogging related to all of<br />

the above causes is exacerbated by increased precipitation.<br />

14.4 | Major soil threats<br />

Four threats to soil functions were selected as major threats and are covered in more detail in this section.<br />

The main criterion for their selection was the area of land affected by these threats – all four of these threats<br />

operate in most agricultural (and many non-agricultural) landscapes, whereas the threats covered in Section<br />

14.3 tend to be more locally focused. Data on these four threats for Canada are covered in more detail in the<br />

case study in the following section (14.5). The present section focuses on North American-scale drivers and<br />

specific results for the United States of America.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

454<br />

in North America


14.4.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion in the United States and Canada accelerated after the arrival of European settlers, who cleared<br />

extensive areas for agriculture and subsequently ploughed and overgrazed the land (Montgomery, 2008).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s rapidly degraded and erosion increased as settlement spread from east to west. In the United States,<br />

erosion was greatest on the east coast in the early 1800s, in the mid-south during the early 1900s, and in the<br />

Great Plains during the ‘Dust Bowl’ era in the 1930s. Some badly degraded lands were abandoned and then<br />

reverted to secondary growth forests, a process that slowed erosion rates. Wind erosion was very significant<br />

in Prairie Canada during the 1930s. <strong>Soil</strong>s that were badly degraded due to wind erosion were subsequently<br />

stabilized and converted to permanent pasture.<br />

Agricultural mechanization, commercial nitrogen availability, and federal policies encouraging maximum<br />

crop production led to cash-crop intensification throughout the middle of the 20th century in both the United<br />

States and Canada. Forage-based rotations were shortened or eliminated, field sizes were increased by the<br />

removal of hedgerows and fences, and tillage intensity remained high. As a result, the potential for soil erosion<br />

increased during this period. In the late 20th and early 21 st centuries higher yielding varieties and improved<br />

herbicide technology supporting the adoption of conservation tillage helped reduce the potential for water<br />

and wind erosion. Federal farm programmes in the late 20th and early 21 st centuries had both favourable and<br />

unfavourable impacts on soil erosion rates. In Canada, the most significant cropping change was the major<br />

reduction in summer fallow (e.g. the practice of leaving land fallow for one growing season and suppressing<br />

weed growth by one or more tillage events) in the two Prairie ecoregions in Canada. This change substantially<br />

reduced the risk of wind erosion.<br />

In the United States, the National <strong>Resources</strong> Inventory (NRI) has reported statistically robust estimates of<br />

water (sheet and rill) erosion and wind erosion on privately owned cropland, since 1982 at fiveyear intervals<br />

(USDA, 2013a), based on a wide monitoring network and an assumed historic average climate for each<br />

location. The estimated decrease in sheet and rill erosion between 1982 and 2002 was 39 percent, and that<br />

between 1982 and 2010 was 41 percent. In the same periods, wind erosion decreased by 41 percent and 46<br />

percent, respectively.<br />

In 2010, the most intense sheet and rill erosion was in the Temperate Prairie and Mixed Wood Plains<br />

ecoregions of the Midwest United States, in the adjacent area of the South-eastern United States Plains<br />

ecoregion and in the Palouse (Cold Desert ecoregions in the state of Washington). These areas and the West-<br />

Central Semi-Arid Prairies ecoregion also had the highest wind erosion rates.<br />

If 2010 NRI estimates of sheet and rill erosion plus wind erosion are averaged across all United States<br />

cropland, the average annual rate is about 10 Mg ha-1, and 57 percent of this is due to sheet and rill erosion<br />

(USDA, 2013a). Tolerable annual soil erosion rates (‘T’) used in the United States typically range from 2 to 11<br />

Mg ha-1, depending upon the soil type. The criteria used to calculate T have been widely criticized (Johnson,<br />

1987) and the overall average soil loss rate is one order of magnitude greater than estimated soil renewal rates,<br />

which are less than 1 Mg ha -1 peryear (Alexander, 1988; Montgomery, 2007). In addition, erosion varies spatially<br />

and may greatly exceed T at any specific NRI point, due to the soil, slope, management and climate at that<br />

location.<br />

The state of soil erosion in Canada and the drivers of change are covered in more detail in Section 14.5 of this<br />

chapter. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion on undisturbed forested land in Canada is generally believed to be low (Maynard et al.,<br />

2014) and no national estimates exist for rates of erosion on disturbed forest land.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

455<br />

in North America


Not all forms of erosion are considered in the national estimates and this leads to considerable overall<br />

uncertainty in estimates. In the United States, the NRI erosion assessment does not include ephemeral<br />

gully or tillage erosion. Tillage erosion is within-field soil redistribution by tillage implements, which has<br />

been extensively documented in both the United States and Canada. Both of these processes may result in<br />

degradation rates comparable to those from wind and water erosion. The best estimate of soil erosion rates<br />

must include estimates of these processes. When these two processes are included, average United States<br />

cropland soil erosion rates exceed published soil development rates by more than one order of magnitude.<br />

In the future, an increased frequency of extreme rainfall events due to climate change will likely increase the<br />

water soil erosion threat in many parts of the United States and Canada.<br />

In Canada, the national Agri-Environmental Indicators programme does include an assessment of<br />

tillage erosion, which is known to be of equal or greater significance than wind and water erosion on some<br />

landscapes. Gully erosion is not included in the Canadian monitoring system, but its incidence in Canada is<br />

believed to be limited. Although accelerated erosion associated with forest harvest is a concern, there are no<br />

recent national-level surveys of its incidence in Canada.<br />

14.4.2 | Nutrient imbalance<br />

Many regions of North America have experienced and continue to experience nutrient applications in<br />

excess of plant requirements. These surpluses lead to elevated levels of N and P in soils, which cause a range of<br />

environmental problems and are a source of considerable societal concern throughout North America.<br />

The greatest issue with nutrient imbalance in North America is the impact of elevated N and P levels in<br />

soil from past and present agricultural activities on water quality. The linkage of elevated soil N and P levels<br />

to water quality problems ranges from algal blooms due to eutrophication in Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba<br />

(Schindler, Hecky and McCullough, 2012), at the northern edge of the agricultural zone, to the seasonal<br />

hypoxia in the shallow coastal waters of the Louisiana shelf in the northern Gulf of Mexico, at the southern<br />

end of the agricultural zone (Alexander et al., 2008).<br />

Estimates on excess nutrient levels presented by Foley et al. (2010, Supplementary Information Maps S6e<br />

and S6f) show that excess application of N continues in many regions of North America whereas little excess<br />

application of P occurs. Excess N application of between 60 to 100 kg ha -1 occurs in much of the Temperate<br />

Prairie and Mixed Wood Plains ecoregions in both the United States and Canada, throughout the Mississippi<br />

River valley, and in pockets in the Southeast United States Coastal Plains ecoregion. Hence over-application of<br />

N is an on-going issue whereas elevated P levels may be largely due to historical over-application.<br />

The linkage between agricultural practices and N and P loads in waterways has been shown by many<br />

studies. For example, recent studies on the Missouri River (Brown, Sprague and Dupree 2011) and the entire<br />

Mississippi River basin (Alexander et al., 2008) using the Spatially Referenced Regressions On Watershed<br />

Attributes (SPARROW) model by United States Geological Survey (2014) researchers found that the majority<br />

of both total N and total P in these waterways is from agricultural land. Specifically, 52 percent of total N<br />

reaching the Gulf of Mexico was from maize-and soybean-producing land with a further 14 percent from all<br />

other crops in the basin. Some 37 percent of total P was from rangeland/pasture land with a further 25 percent<br />

from maize- and soybean-producing land. Considerable regional variations occur. For example, in the western<br />

sections of the Missouri River basin where cattle grazing is the dominant land use, as much as 34 percent of<br />

total N was from manure whereas in the Mississippi River basin as a whole, only 5 percent of total N was from<br />

rangeland and pasture land.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

456<br />

in North America


The relationship between soil properties, management, and particular N and P fractions is complex<br />

(Sharpley and Wang, 2014; Harmel et al., 2006). Harmel et al. (2006) examined the relationship between soil<br />

and site attributes and N and P fractions in nutrient loads from watersheds in 15 United States states and two<br />

provinces of Canada. Particulate N and P loss contributed, on average, three times as much as dissolved forms<br />

to loads, indicating the overriding effect of soil erosion and transport on N and P loads. Median particulate<br />

N loads were greater in areas of conventional tillage (which experience higher erosion rates on average) and<br />

lower in areas of conservation tillage and no-till land, although no differences were observed for particulate<br />

P. There was a weak relationship between soil test P and all forms of P load, again indicating the importance<br />

of existing or legacy soil P content. Dissolved N and P loads were highest in areas of no-till land. The build-up<br />

of P at the soil surface in no-till systems was also implicated in the increase since 1995 of dissolved P load in<br />

the Maumee River system (which drains into Lake Erie), although the response of this system to management<br />

changes was very complex (Sharpley and Wang, 2014).<br />

Excess soil nitrogen can also leach from the soil as nitrate. This threat is most severe in situations where<br />

shallow aquifers are used as potable water sources in humid or sub-humid climates with coarse-textured<br />

soils utilized for intensive agricultural production. Examples in Canada include Prince Edward Island, the<br />

Abbotsford aquifer, BC and Kings County, Nova Scotia. The indicator of risk of water contamination by<br />

nitrogen (IROWC-N) in the Canadian Agri-Environmental Indicators doubled from ~5 mg N L-1 in 1981 to a value<br />

approaching the Canadian drinking water guideline for nitrate (10 mg N L-1) in 2006 in the Atlantic Highlands<br />

and in the Canadian portions of the Mixed Wood Highlands (AAFC, 2013).<br />

Country-specific information for nutrient imbalance in Canada is given in Section 14.5 of this report.<br />

N levels in excess of plant requirements in soils are also linked to other environmental issues, especially<br />

the enhanced release of the potent greenhouse gas, N 2<br />

O, from soils. In both Canada and the United States,<br />

agriculture accounts for 6 to 7 percent of total GHG emissions (EPA, 2014b; Environment Canada, 2013b).<br />

Emissions of N 2<br />

O from agricultural soils account for 75 percent of the agricultural total in the United States and<br />

65 percent in Canada. The highest N 2<br />

O emissions occur under anaerobic conditions and hence are intimately<br />

linked to changes in waterlogging in agricultural landscapes. Health concerns are also linked to forms of N in<br />

groundwater and fertilizer application, although the direct link to human health can be difficult to ascertain<br />

(Manassaram, Backer and Moll, 2006).<br />

14.4.3 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

Assessment of soil organic carbon (SOC) in the United States and Canada currently includes a number of<br />

approaches aimed at either directly measuring or modelling SOC change over time. Both countries utilize<br />

national-scale modelling of SOC change for GHG emissions inventories and reporting.<br />

Models of SOC changes currently show increases in the United States. These increases in SOC are primarily<br />

due to less intensive agriculture (McLauchlan, Hobbie and Post, 2006) and reduced tillage intensity (West<br />

et al., 2008). Models generally predict that converting areas from native vegetation (e.g. prairies and native<br />

forest) to cropland and forest plantations results in decreased SOM; however, in some cases, high-productivity<br />

crops and SOC-conserving management may enhance SOC. For instance, Ogle et al. (2010) estimated that<br />

SOC in United States croplands increased by 14.6 and 17.5 Tg yr -1 during 1990-1995 and 1995-2000, respectively,<br />

primarily due to reductions in tillage intensity.<br />

For agricultural soils in Canada, national-level modelling indicates that improvements in farm management<br />

have resulted in a dramatic shift from stable SOC levels (e.g. additions are equal to losses) during the mid-<br />

1980s, to a situation where the majority of cropland had increasing SOC levels in the mid-1990s through to<br />

2011 (discussed in more detail in Section 14.5 of this chapter).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

457<br />

in North America


There is currently high uncertainty associated with SOC models (Ogle et al., 2010) such as CENTURY<br />

(National Resource Ecology Laboratory, 2007), the SOC model most commonly used in the United States and<br />

Canada to predict SOC change. Improving model parameterization and adding additional SOC measurements<br />

over time could help reduce uncertainty. This information could be used to better calibrate, estimate and<br />

potentially reduce model uncertainty as well as to directly track SOC change (Jandl et al., 2014). Nationallevel<br />

modelling is also limited by the lack of data on SOC stocks and change deeper in the soil profile. Models<br />

and researchers generally consider subsurface SOC as a relatively stable pool. Little direct evidence has been<br />

provided, however, that SOC stabilized under previous conditions will remain stable with changing conditions,<br />

such as with climate change. Some studies have shown that previously stable SOC may be rapidly converted<br />

to CO 2<br />

(Fontaine et al., 2007; Fang et al., 2005).<br />

There are currently two major United States-wide efforts that sample soil over time, the Forest Inventory<br />

and Analysis (FIA) by Gillespie, 1999, covering United States forests, and the Rapid C assessment (USDA,<br />

2013b), which includes all vegetated areas. The FIA samples soil to a maximum depth of 20 cm, so its utility<br />

in monitoring whole-profile SOC over time is limited (Waltman et al., 2010; Jandl et al., 2014). The Rapid<br />

C assessment (USDA, 2013b) samples soil profiles to 100 cm depth. It is currently uncertain what depth is<br />

required to truly understand SOC and potential changes in SOC (Harrison, Footen and Strahm, 2011). Some<br />

studies have shown that results of monitoring SOC change vs. land management depend more on maximum<br />

soil sampling depth than on treatments (Liebig et al., 2005; Khan et al., 2007; Harrison, Footen and Strahm,<br />

2011).<br />

Field data on losses of SOC in Canadian soils after conversion from native land to cropland, and for different<br />

tillage, crop rotation and fertilizer management practices were compiled from a total of 62 studies by<br />

VandenBygaart et al. (2003). They demonstrated that 24 ± 6 percent of the SOC was lost after native land was<br />

converted to agricultural land. In the past two decades, no-till (NT) increased the storage of SOC in Mollisols<br />

(Chernozems) of the two Prairie ecoregions by 2.9 ± 1.3 Mg ha–1; however, in the moister soils of central and<br />

eastern Canada, conversion to NT did not increase SOC. More recent studies using meta-analyses (Congreves<br />

et al., 2014) of long-term agricultural management effects on SOC in Ontario indicate trends towards higher<br />

SOC with NT than under conventional tillage practises. Crop rotation was found to lead to higher SOC than<br />

when continuous maize was grown, and the application of N fertilizer led to an increase in SOC compared to<br />

when no N fertilizer was applied.<br />

Carbon change in managed forests (232 million ha) in Canada is assessed as part of the National Inventory,<br />

primarily using the CBM-CFS model (Kurz et al., 2009). Carbon emissions from the dead organic matter and<br />

soil pools are lumped together. Results showed a small increase in emissions from 2000-2007 due to the<br />

short-term effect of past disturbances, especially insect infestation. However, the values decreased from 2008<br />

until 2012 and have returned to long-term levels. Freshwater mineral wetland soils in the Prairie ecoregions<br />

are also important carbon reservoirs, and approximately 70 percent of these were impacted by agricultural<br />

activities in 2005 (Bartzen et al., 2010); however there is no regional estimate of associated carbon change.<br />

Permafrost soils are classified as Cryosols in Canada and cover 2.5 million km 2 ; they are estimated to<br />

contain 39 percent of all organic carbon in Canadian soils (Tarnocai and Bockheim, 2011). The greatest driver<br />

of change in these soils is climate change. The IPCC 5th Assessment Report (Clais et al., 2013) states that there<br />

is high confidence that reductions in permafrost due to warming will cause thawing of some currently frozen<br />

carbon, but there is low confidence on the magnitude of CO 2<br />

and CH 4<br />

emissions to the atmosphere due to the<br />

complexity of the biogeochemical processes involved.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

458<br />

in North America


14.4.4 | <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity refers to the myriad of organisms living in the soil, ranging from the smallest microorganisms<br />

(e.g. bacteria, archaea and fungi) to soil invertebrates. Up until the advent of molecular biology and its use<br />

in soil science in the 1990s, the assessment of soil biodiversity was done using morphological methods.<br />

Methods to study soil biodiversity are improving constantly with the application of sequencing technologies,<br />

complementing the morphological assessments.<br />

As a result of our paucity of knowledge, assessing threats to soil biodiversity is very difficult. There is no<br />

reference baseline data for these organisms, nor do scientists have the ability to estimate the true numbers<br />

of soil organisms, particularly microorganisms. Many organisms have not been described and overall we need<br />

a better understanding of the biogeography of soil organisms in North America (Nunez and Dickie, 2014).<br />

Advances, however, have been made. For example, Taylor et al. (2014) completed a comprehensive survey of<br />

fungi in black spruce (Picea mariana) sites in Alaska and recorded 1 002 taxa in this system. They reported a<br />

fungus: plant ratio of 17:1.<br />

However, as soil organisms are so intricately tied to aboveground plant species, threats to plant species<br />

such as habitat loss are also liable to affect soil organisms (Wardle et al., 2004). Evidence of this exists. For<br />

example, it has been shown that removal of logging residues from harvested forest sites is one of the major<br />

threats to forest fungi and insects (Berch, Morris and Malcolm, 2011). Similarly, invasive plant species and<br />

their mutualistic microbes pose a threat to native mutualist communities (Nunez and Dickie, 2014). Invasive<br />

alien species are entering North America with increasing frequency due to the growing volume of trade,<br />

the broadening of trading partners, and the increases in travel and tourism that accompany globalization<br />

(Environment Canada, 2013a).<br />

Regional or national-level programmes that monitor soil biodiversity are lacking in North America. In<br />

Europe, Gardi et al. (2013) used modelling of data from 20 experts to demonstrate that the main pressures<br />

on soil biodiversity were intensive land exploitation (such as agriculture intensification using tillage, crop<br />

rotations, and additions of pesticides and herbicides) and changes in land use (such as the reduction in forests<br />

that have the highest soil biodiversity and the increase in soil sealing) combined with decreasing amounts of<br />

soil organic matter and increasing numbers of invasive species.<br />

These modelling results are increasingly being supported by field studies using emerging identification and<br />

community analysis techniques. Crowther et al. (2014) assessed deforestation effects on soil biodiversity at<br />

eleven sites in the United States and found that forest removal was generally associated with reductions in<br />

fungal and bacterial microbial biomass and increases in diversity of taxa. The magnitude of differences due to<br />

deforestation varied drastically between sites and was best explained by differences in soil texture: the effects<br />

were greatest in coarse-textured soils and least in fine-textured soils. Crowther et al. (2014) suggest that the<br />

relationship between soil biodiversity and soil texture offers the potential for mapping regional and national<br />

patterns of the susceptibility of total (fungal, bacterial, and archaeal) soil biomass to changes in vegetation<br />

(see Figure 4 in Crowther et al., 2014). Studies based on a meta-analysis of crop rotation found that adding<br />

one or more crops in rotation increased microbial biomass carbon by 20.7 percent and microbial biomass<br />

nitrogen by 26.1 percent, indicating the sensitivity of soil microbes to the quantity and biochemistry of crop<br />

inputs (McDaniel, Tiemann and Grandy, 2014). Other studies, such as those by Wagg et al. (2014), are explicitly<br />

examining the relationship between decreasing biodiversity in the soil community and changes in ecosystem<br />

functions, such as carbon sequestration and nitrogen and phosphorus leaching.<br />

In addition, climate change is considered a threat to soil biodiversity. Unfortunately, there is a scarcity of<br />

data on this issue. To determine this threat we need to predict soil biodiversity patterns, which is not possible<br />

with our current knowledge. However, there are indications that soil biodiversity will be reduced by climate<br />

change. Studies in the Canadian Arctic show that extreme ecosystems contain many unique organisms that<br />

may become extinct with permafrost melting (Vincent et al., 2009). Wildfire events, which are another threat<br />

to soil biodiversity, are also predicted to increase because of climate change (Krawchuk et al., 2009).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

459<br />

in North America


At present, no national or regional assessment on loss of biodiversity can be made for North America, but<br />

there are signs that such an assessment may be possible in the future. The Global <strong>Soil</strong> Biodiversity Initiative<br />

(GSBI) was launched in 2011 and provides a welcome platform for the coordination of research in this area<br />

(GSBI, 2014).<br />

14.5 | Case study: Canada<br />

As discussed in the Introduction (14.1), there are no existing regional maps for threats to soil functions<br />

for North America. In this section the maps produced under the Canadian Agri-Environmental Indicators<br />

programme (Clearwater et al., 2015) for wind and water erosion, SOC change and nutrient imbalance (residual<br />

soil N and P-source risk classes) are presented so that the linkage between drivers and threats to soil functions<br />

can be illustrated. The maps focus on agricultural impacts on soil functions. No comparable products exist for<br />

other soil threats.<br />

The major changes to drivers in Canada have been discussed in detail in Section 14.3 above. There are<br />

distinct differences across the main ecoregions of Canada that experience concentrated human impact. The<br />

main drivers can be summarized as:<br />

• Intensification of agriculture e.g. reduced pasture area, increased area of maize and soybean production,<br />

higher fertilizer inputs in the Mixed Wood Plains ecoregion in southern Ontario and Quebec and in the<br />

agricultural areas of eastern Canada e.g. in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.<br />

• Significant reductions in the area of tillage summerfallow in the Temperate Plains and West-Central<br />

Semi-Arid ecoregions.<br />

• Widespread adoption of conservation tillage practices in most cropping systems in Canada.<br />

14.5.1 | Water and wind erosion<br />

In Canada, the <strong>Soil</strong> Erosion Risk Indicator was used as part of the Agri-Environmental Indicators programme<br />

to assess the risk of soil erosion from the combined effects of wind, water and tillage on cultivated agricultural<br />

lands (Figure 14.5). This indicator and its component indicators for wind, water and tillage erosion reflect the<br />

characteristics of the climate, soil and topography and correspond to changes in farming practices over the<br />

30-year period from 1981 to 2011. Wind and water erosion are the primary focus of this summary. For details on<br />

calculation of the indicators, see Li et al. (2008), McConkey, Li and Black, (2008), and Huang and Lobb (2013).<br />

The erosion indicator calculation estimates the rate of soil loss. These values are reported in five classes.<br />

Areas in the very low risk class are considered capable of sustaining long-term crop production and maintaining<br />

agri-environmental health under current conditions. The other four classes represent the degrees of risk of<br />

unsustainable conditions that call for soil conservation practices to support crop production over the long<br />

term and to reduce risk to soil quality.<br />

The risk of soil erosion on Canadian cropland has steadily declined between 1981 and 2011. The majority<br />

of this change occurred between 1991 and 2006. In 2011, 61 percent of cropland area was in the very low risk<br />

class overall, a considerable improvement over 1981 when only 29 percent was in this risk class. This decrease<br />

in water and wind erosion risk was most pronounced in the Temperate Prairie and West-Central Semi-Arid<br />

ecoregions in Alberta and Saskatchewan (Figure 14.5 and 14.6). Much of the improvement in erosion risk is<br />

from reductions due to the reduction in tillage summer fallow. A second driver is the increased adoption of<br />

direct seeding and conservation tillage, which is largely responsible for the decrease in tillage intensity and<br />

soil erosion.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

460<br />

in North America


Figure 14.5 Risk of water erosion in Canada 2011. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

461<br />

in North America


Figure 14.6 Risk of wind erosion in Canada 2011. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015.<br />

Of the cropping systems across Canada, the risk of soil erosion by water is greatest under potato production<br />

in central and eastern Canada. In these areas there is intensive tillage and little opportunity to reduce the<br />

intensity through conservation tillage practices (Figure 14.5). The cropping system with the next greatest risk<br />

of erosion is the production of maize and soybeans under conventional tillage; however, there is a significant<br />

opportunity to reduce this erosion risk with conservation tillage. Of all soil landscapes across Canada, the<br />

risk of soil erosion by water is greatest in areas with maximum slopes of 10 percent or more, especially those<br />

located in central and eastern Canada where the risk of water erosion is inherently high due to climate<br />

(Figure 14.5).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

462<br />

in North America


Figure 14.7 <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change in Canada 201. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015.<br />

14.5.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

The soil organic carbon (SOC) change indicator used in the national Agri-Environmental Indicators<br />

programme assesses how organic C levels are changing over time in Canadian agricultural soils. The indicator<br />

is based on the method used for the Canadian National Inventory Report (Environment Canada, 2014). The<br />

indicator uses the Century model (NREL, 2007) to predict the rate of change of organic C content in Canada’s<br />

agricultural soils due to the effects of land management change since 1951. These include changes in tillage<br />

and summer fallow frequency, and change between annual crops and perennial hay or pasture. It includes<br />

land use changes such as clearing forests for agriculture or breaking native grass for cropland, but does not<br />

include the loss of C from the above-ground forest biomass.<br />

No changes in SOC were assumed if there were no indicated changes in land use or land management. The<br />

SOC change indicator does not consider soil erosion.<br />

The SOC change indicator results are presented (Figure 14.7) as the percentage of total cropland that falls<br />

into each of five SOC change classes expressed in kilograms per ha per year (kg ha -1 yr -1 ). Negative values<br />

represent a loss of SOC from the soil and positive values represent a gain of SOC.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

463<br />

in North America


For the Boreal Plains ecoregions from Ontario eastward, there was an overall loss of SOC from 1981 to 2011<br />

due to the reduction in the area of hayland and pasture and the corresponding increase in the area of annual<br />

crops (Figure 14.7). This shift in land use reflects a reduction in the demand for feed associated with the declining<br />

cattle populations in those provinces. The losses in Ontario and Quebec have been offset to a limited degree as<br />

a result of the adoption of conservation tillage. However, conservation tillage has not been implemented to<br />

the same extent in provinces in eastern Canada due to their cooler and wetter climatic conditions.<br />

The two agricultural ecoregions in the Prairie provinces have seen major increases in SOC over time due to<br />

reductions in tillage intensity and in summer fallow. These changes are responsible for the overall net gain in<br />

SOC in Canada (see Section 14.4.3 above).<br />

14.5.4 | Nutrient imbalance<br />

The assessment of nutrient imbalance in the Agri-Environmental Indicators programme focuses on N and<br />

P, and assesses both the N and P status of soils and the risk to water quality associated with the soil stores.<br />

The risk to water quality involves coupling hydrological and climate data with the land surface information for<br />

each region. This section focuses on the N and P status of soils.<br />

The residual soil nitrogen (RSN) indicator used in the National Agri-Environmental Indicators program<br />

provides an estimate of the amount of inorganic N that is left in the soil at the end of the growing season<br />

which may be susceptible to loss (Drury et al., 2007, 2010). The RSN indicator is estimated as the yearly<br />

difference between the total N input to agricultural soils and the output in harvested crops and gaseous losses<br />

including ammonia, nitrous oxide and dinitrogen. The major categories of N inputs into soil include fertilizer<br />

addition, manure application, biological nitrogen fixation by leguminous crops and free-living bacteria, and<br />

atmospheric wet and dry deposition. Nitrogen outputs include N removal in the harvested crop and gaseous<br />

N emissions via ammonia volatilization (NH 3<br />

), nitrification (N 2<br />

O) and denitrification (N 2<br />

O, N 2<br />

).<br />

The RSN on Canadian agricultural land has steadily increased from a low of 9.4 kg N ha -1 in 1981 to a maximum<br />

of 25.3 kg N ha -1 in 2001 (a year where many regions experienced drought conditions and were unable to use<br />

the applied N). The latest figure is 23.6 kg N ha -1 in 2011, the most recent census year. On a national basis, N<br />

inputs have almost doubled over the 30 years from 44.4 kg N ha -1 to 80.8 kg N ha -1 whereas N outputs have only<br />

increased by 63 percent from 35 kg N ha -1 in 1981 to 57.2 kg N ha -1 in 2011.<br />

The RSN map (Figure 14.8) for Canadian farmland in 2011 generally shows that there are high or very high<br />

residual N contents in farmland in many areas across Canada. Considerable change has occurred since 1981;<br />

for example, the Temperate Prairies in Manitoba were primarily in the very low and low risk classes in 1981<br />

whereas the great majority of the province is now in a very high risk class in 2011 (Figure 4.4). The Mixed Wood<br />

Plains in central and eastern Canada are also currently predominantly in the very high risk group, which again<br />

a considerable increase since 1981.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

464<br />

in North America


Figure 14.8 Residual soil N in Canada 2011. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015.<br />

Changes to management practices are required especially in the more humid regions in the Canada (notably<br />

Ontario, Quebec and eastern Canada) to reduce N losses from soils, to increase fertilizer use efficiency and to<br />

better synchronize N application with crop N demand. Further, the use of cover crops, especially in years with<br />

reduced yields, may help to reduce N losses from soil.<br />

The IROWC-P Indicator was developed to assess the status and trends over time for the risk of surface<br />

water contamination by P from Canadian agricultural land and is reported for agricultural watersheds (van<br />

Bochove et al., 2010). The initial stage in calculating IROWC-P involves the estimation of the annual amount<br />

of dissolved P that may potentially be released from agricultural soils (P source). P source is estimated as a<br />

function of cumulative P additions and removals (P-balance) over a 35-year period up to 2011 and the resulting<br />

degree of soil P saturation.<br />

There has generally been an increasing trend in the P-source levels in the surface of agricultural soils in<br />

Canada since 1976 as intensified agricultural practices have resulted in the application of P in excess of crop<br />

uptake (also called positive annual P balance) and have therefore increased soil P saturation. In 2011, very high<br />

concentrations of P (more than 4 mg of P per kg, or >4 mg P kg-1) at risk for release by storm events were located<br />

in regions where the agricultural production has been historically intensive and where soils have reached high<br />

P saturation values. High risk of water- contamination by P occurs around Abbotsford, British Columbia in the<br />

Marine West Coast Forest ecoregions, in the Temperate Prairies around Lethbridge in Alberta, and in portions<br />

of southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba (Figure 14.9). Intensive livestock operations near Abbotsford and<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

465<br />

in North America


Figure 14.9 Indicator of risk of water contamination by phosphorus (IROWC-P) in Canada in 2011. Source: Clearwater et al., 2015.<br />

Lethbridge are major local sources of high P loadings. The Mixed Wood Shield ecoregion of central Ontario and<br />

the Mixed Wood Plains ecoregion in Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are also dominated by<br />

very high or high P source risk.<br />

Implications of soil threats for soil functions<br />

Clearly the national assessment of the threats to soil functions shows a distinct separation between the<br />

agricultural systems of the Prairie provinces and those of Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. Both the<br />

state and the trend of soil change in the Prairie provinces are generally positive, especially in soil erosion<br />

(notably wind erosion) and carbon change. The greatest risk in this region lies in the high residual nutrient<br />

levels in areas like Manitoba and in the possible contribution of these high residual levels to eutrophication in<br />

lakes in this region (Schindler, Hecky and McCullough, 2012).<br />

The level of the threats in the Mixed Wood Plains of central and eastern Canada is very different. There<br />

are generally high or very high levels of threat for soil organic carbon change, erosion by water, and nutrient<br />

imbalance. The well-integrated drainage system and higher precipitation levels than in the Prairie provinces<br />

lead to significant sediment and nutrient delivery to waterways. There is thus a risk of serious impact of<br />

agricultural land management on water quality (Clearwater et al., 2015). The combined effects of soil organic<br />

carbon loss and water erosion presumably also reduce services and products delivered by the soil, but these<br />

have been poorly documented in this region.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

466<br />

in North America


14.6 | Conclusions and recommendations<br />

Overall there has been significant progress made in reducing threats to soil functions in North America.<br />

Threats from acidification and contamination have been reduced due to the imposition of a stronger<br />

regulatory framework. The greatest change in cropping practices - reduced tillage - has largely come about<br />

through adoption by individual producers supported by government and private sector extension agents.<br />

However, major areas of concern remain. Erosion rates are still above what are believed to be tolerable levels<br />

in the Temperate Prairies ecoregion of the United States and throughout the Mixed Wood Plains ecoregion of<br />

Canada and the United States. Transport of soil-derived N and P to waterways is a major problem, and excess<br />

application of N continues throughout much of the cropland in the United States and in central and eastern<br />

Canada.<br />

Although a wide variety of best management practices for optimum nutrient application and erosion<br />

control have been developed and promoted, the problems of erosion and nutrient imbalance persist.<br />

Salinization, contamination, and acidification affect smaller areas in North America, and in the case of the<br />

latter two threats the current regulatory framework limits the expansion of the affected area. Waterlogging<br />

is little studied in North America, and we recommend that future reports include assessments of loss of<br />

wetlands as an important metric for sustainable management in this and other regions.<br />

The loss of agricultural land to soil sealing is not perceived as a major issue in North America. However, the<br />

paucity of data on this threat needs to be addressed for a more informed assessment to be made.<br />

Changes in carbon stocks in North America have been extensively modeled as part of national reporting<br />

programs on greenhouse gas emissions, but only in a few landscapes are the models adequately supported<br />

by field observations of SOC change. The greatest uncertainty surrounding SOC change lies in the response of<br />

carbon in permafrost soils to climate change in northern Canada and Alaska and improved monitoring of this<br />

response is essential.<br />

Like the SOC models, the agri-environmental indicators approach used in the Canadian case study allows<br />

estimation of the change in threats to soil function over time. However, several criticisms can be made of<br />

the approach. First, there is a lack of ongoing monitoring of important soil physical, chemical and biological<br />

properties at relevant scales through time and hence it is difficult to assess the performance of the models<br />

that underlie the indicators. Second, the interaction between indicators (for example, between erosion and<br />

carbon) is not considered, and this can bias the assessment of soil change. Third, it is difficult to assess the<br />

variability associated with modelled results and therefore to evaluate overall the confidence that can be placed<br />

in the results. Overall there is a need to revise the models in light of new scientific advances and to develop and<br />

refine scientifically credible programs to assess model performance.<br />

The greatest uncertainty overall in our knowledge about the threats to soil functions lies in our limited<br />

understanding of the changes in soil biodiversity in the past and present and the implications of these changes<br />

for sustainable soil management.<br />

Based on the above finding, a provisional assessment is made of the status and trend of the 10 soil threats in<br />

order of importance for the region. At the same time an indication is given of the reliability of these estimates<br />

(Table 14.1)<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

467<br />

in North America


Threat to soil<br />

function<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

Nutrient<br />

imbalance<br />

Organic<br />

carbon change<br />

Loss of soil<br />

biodiversity<br />

Summary<br />

Reduced tillage and<br />

improved residue<br />

management have lowered<br />

erosion rates in regions<br />

such as the Great Plains in<br />

Canada but water erosion<br />

rates continue to be too<br />

high in the northern<br />

Mid-West of the U.S. and<br />

agricultural areas of central<br />

and Atlantic Canada.<br />

Excess application<br />

of fertilizers in many<br />

regions causes significant<br />

degradation of surface<br />

water quality and increased<br />

emissions of nitrous<br />

oxide to the atmosphere.<br />

Contamination of surface<br />

water is strongly linked<br />

to high erosion rates, and<br />

occurs in the same regions<br />

(northern mid- west U.S.,<br />

Mississippi River Basin,<br />

and agricultural regions of<br />

central Canada).<br />

The majority of cropland<br />

in the U.S. and Canada<br />

has shown improvements<br />

in SOC stores due to the<br />

wide-spread adoption of<br />

conservation agriculture<br />

(i.e., reduced tillage<br />

and improved reside<br />

management). There is a<br />

lack of field validation sites<br />

to support the nationallevel<br />

modelling results.<br />

Loss of SOC from northern<br />

and Arctic soils due to<br />

climate change is a major<br />

concern.<br />

The extent of loss of soil<br />

biodiversity due to human<br />

impact is largely unknown<br />

in North America. The<br />

effects of increasing<br />

agricultural chemical use,<br />

especially pesticides, use<br />

on biodiversity is a major<br />

public concern.<br />

Known level of carbon loss<br />

suggests similar loss in<br />

biodiversity.<br />

Condition and Trend<br />

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good<br />

Confidence<br />

In<br />

In trend<br />

condition<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

468<br />

in North America


Compaction<br />

Sealing<br />

and land take<br />

Salinization<br />

and sodification<br />

Contamination<br />

<strong>Soil</strong><br />

acidification<br />

Waterlogging<br />

Compaction continues<br />

to be a low-level issue,<br />

especially in regions with<br />

texture-contrast (Luvisol,<br />

Alfisol, Ultsol) soils. The<br />

regional-scale impact<br />

of compaction on plant<br />

growth is largely unknown.<br />

Substantial expansion of<br />

housing and infrastructure<br />

in areas of high quality<br />

farmland continues in<br />

both countries but is<br />

(incorrectly) not perceived<br />

as a concern. Neither<br />

country has reliable data<br />

on sealing and land take.<br />

Salinization is believed to<br />

be increasing in parts of<br />

the northern Great Plains<br />

in the U.S.A. but the risk of<br />

salinization is decreasing in<br />

western Canada.<br />

Although many legacy<br />

contamination sites exist,<br />

improved regulatory<br />

systems in both<br />

countries has limited the<br />

creation of new areas of<br />

contamination.<br />

Large-scale land<br />

disturbance due to<br />

resource extraction<br />

activities continues to be a<br />

significant issue.<br />

Trans-national<br />

environmental legislation<br />

has significantly reduced<br />

soil acidification in forested<br />

areas of eastern and<br />

central North America.<br />

Localized areas of<br />

acidification in agricultural<br />

land managed through<br />

lime application.<br />

Waterlogging is not<br />

believed to be a significant<br />

threat in North America.<br />

Localized flooding has<br />

occurred due to a wider<br />

amplitude of precipitation<br />

events in the past decade.<br />

Loss of wetlands is a more<br />

significant threat<br />

in North America.<br />

Table 14.1 Summary of soil threats status, trends and uncertainties in North America<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

469<br />

in North America


Acknowledgements<br />

Jenny Sutherland of NRCS in Lincoln, Nebraska very capably edited the material on the soil threats. Tim<br />

Martin of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provided access to the updated Canadian agri-environmental<br />

indicators material used in this chapter. The chapter was reviewed by D. Burton, F. Walley, C. Rice, E. Gregorich,<br />

C. van Kessel, T. Moore, and F. Larney and their suggestions for revisions are gratefully acknowledged.<br />

References<br />

AAFC. 2013. Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Agri-Environmental Indicator Report Series.<br />

Report No. 3. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.<br />

Adams, M.B., Burger, J.A., Jenkins, A.B. & Zelazny, L.W. 2000. Impact of harvesting and atmospheric<br />

pollution on nutrient depletion of eastern USA hardwood forests. For. Ecol. Manage., 138: 301–319.<br />

Aherne, J. & Posch, M. 2013. Impacts of nitrogen and sulphur deposition on forest ecosystem services in<br />

Canada. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5: 108–115.<br />

Alexander, E.B. 1988. Rates of soil formation: Implications for soil-loss tolerance. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 145: 37-45.<br />

Alexander, R.B., Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., Boyer, E.W., Nolan, J.V. & Brakebill, J.W. 2008. Differences in<br />

phosphorus and nitrogen delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River basin. Environmental Science<br />

and Technology, 42: 822–830.<br />

Bartzen, B.A., Dufour, K.W., Clark, R.G. & Caswell, F.D. 2010. Trends in agricultural impact and recovery<br />

of wetlands in prairie Canada. Ecological Applications, 20: 525-538.<br />

Berch, S.M., Morris, D. & Malcolm, J. 2011. Intensive forest biomass harvesting and biodiversity in Canada:<br />

A summary of relevant issues. The For. Chron., 87: 478–487.<br />

Bridgham, S., Megonigal, J.P., Keller, J.K., Bliss, N.B. & Trettin, C. 2006. The carbon balance of North<br />

American wetlands. Wetlands, 20: 605-615.<br />

Brimelow, J., Stewart, R., Hanesiak, J., Kochtubajda, B., Szeto, K. & Bonsal, B. 2014. Characterization<br />

and assessment of the devastating natural hazards across the Canadian Prairie Provinces from 2009 to 2011.<br />

Nat. Hazards, 73: 761–785.<br />

Brown, J.B., Sprague, L.A. & Dupree, J.A. 2011. Nutrient sources and transport in the Missouri River basin,<br />

with emphasis on the effects of irrigation and reservoirs. J.Amer. Water Res.Assoc., 47: 1030-1065.<br />

Carrera-Hernandez, J.J., Mendoza, C.A., Devito, K.J., Petrone, R.M. & Smerdon, B.D. 2011. Effects of<br />

aspen harvesting on groundwater recharge and water table dynamics in a subhumid climate. Water Resour.<br />

Res., 47: 18.<br />

CCME. 2013. Progress report on the Canada-wide acid rain strategy for post-2000. Canadian Council of Ministers<br />

of the Environment. (Also available at http://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/air/acid_rain.html).<br />

Clais, P., Sabine, C., Bala, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Canadell, J., Chhabra, A., DeFries, R., Galloway,<br />

G., Helmann, M., Jones, C., Le Quere, C., Myeni, R.B., Piao, S. & Thornton, P. 2013. Carbon and other<br />

Biogeochemical Cycles. In Stocker T.F. ed. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working<br />

Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 465-570. UK, Cambridge<br />

& USA, New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

470<br />

in North America


Clearwater, R.L., Martin, T., Hoppe, T. & Kalff, S. 2015. Environmental sustainability of Canadian<br />

agriculture: Agri-environmental indicator report series. Report No. 4. Ottawa, ON, Agriculture and Agri-Food<br />

Canada. (DRAFT)<br />

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 1997. Ecological regions of North America. Toward a Common<br />

Perspective. (Also available at http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentID=1329).<br />

Congreves, K.A., Smith, J.M., Németh, D.D., Hooker, D.C. & Van Eerd L.L. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon and<br />

land use: Processes and potential in Ontario’s long-term agro-ecosystem research sites. Can. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 94(3):<br />

317-336.<br />

Conservation Technology Information Center. 2014. Crop Residue Management Survey. (Also available at<br />

http://www.conservationinformation.org/CRM/.)<br />

Cronan, C.S. & Grigal, D.F. 1995. Use of calcium/aluminum ratios as indicators of stress in forest ecosystems.<br />

Journal of Environmental Quality, 24: 209–226.<br />

Crowther, T.W., Maynard, D.S., Leff, J.W., Oldfield, E.E., McCulley, R.L., Fierer, N. & Bradford, M.M. 2014.<br />

Predicting the responsiveness of soil biodiversity to deforestation: A cross-biome study. Global Change Biology,<br />

20: 2983–2994.<br />

Chan, W.H., Tang, A.J.S., Chung, D.H.S. & Lusis, M.A. 1986. Concentration and deposition of trace metals<br />

in Ontario. Water Air <strong>Soil</strong> Pollut., 29: 373-389.<br />

Doyle, P.J., Gutzman, D.W., Bird, G.A., Sheppard, M.I., Sheppard, S.C. & Hrebenyk, D. 2003. An ecological<br />

risk assessment of air emissions of trace metals from copper and zinc production facilities. Human Ecol. Risk<br />

Assess., 9(2): 607-636.<br />

Driscoll, C.T., Lawerence, G.B., Bulger, A.J., Butler, T.J., Cronan, C.S., Eager, C., Lambert, K.F., Likens,<br />

G.E., Stoddard, J.L., & Weathers, K.C. 2001. Acidic deposition in the northeastern United States: Sources and<br />

inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies. Bioscience, 51: 180-198.<br />

Drury, C.F., Yang, J.Y., De Jong, R., Huffman, T., Yang, X.M. & Reid, K. 2010. Residual <strong>Soil</strong> Nitrogen. In<br />

W. Eilers, R. MacKay, L. Graham, & A. Lefebvre, eds. Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Agr-<br />

Environmental Indicator Report Series - Report No. 3., pp. 74-80. Ottawa, Ont, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.<br />

Drury, C.F., Yang, J.Y., De Jong, R., Yang, X.M., Huffman, E., Kirkwood, V. & Reid, K. 2007. Residual soil<br />

nitrogen indicator for Canada. Can. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 87: 166-177.<br />

Environment Canada. 2013a. National Inventory Report. 1990-2001. Part 3. (Also available at http://unfccc.int/<br />

national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/7383.php)<br />

Environment Canada. 2013b. Invasive Alien Species Program. (Also available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/<br />

default.asp?lang=En&n=B 008265C-1#_Toc 315269282.)<br />

Environment Canada. 2014. National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada 1990-2012.<br />

Submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Also available at http://unfccc.int/<br />

national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/8108.php).<br />

EPA. 2014a. National Priorities List (NPL). (Also available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl.)<br />

EPA. 2014b. Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (Also available at http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/<br />

gases/n2o.html.)<br />

Fang, C., Smith, P., Moncrieff, J.B. & Smith, J.U. 2005. Similar response of labile and resistant SOM pools<br />

to changes in temperature. Nature, 433: 57–59.<br />

Fanning, D., Rabenhorst, M., Coppock, C., Daniels, W. & Orndorff, Z. 2004. Upland active acid sulfate<br />

soils from construction of new Stafford County, Virginia, USA, airport. Aust. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Res., 42: 527–536.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

471<br />

in North America


Foley‚J.A., Ramankutty‚N., Brauman, K.A. Cassidy E.S., Gerber‚ J.S., Johnston‚ M., Mueller, N.D.‚<br />

O’Connell‚ C., Ray‚ D.K., West‚ P.C., Balzer‚ C., Bennett‚ E.M., Carpenter S.R.‚ Hill‚J., Monfreda C.‚ S.<br />

Polasky‚ S., Rockström‚ J. Sheehan‚ J., Siebert, S.‚ Tilman‚ D. & Zaks, D.P.M. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated<br />

planet. Nature‚ 478: 337-342.<br />

Fontaine, S., Barot, S., Barre, P., Bdioui, N., Mary, B. & Rumpel, C. 2007. Stability of organic carbon in<br />

deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply. Nature, 450: 277–281.<br />

Francis, C.A., Hansen, T.E., Fox, A.A., Hesje, P.J., Nelson, H.E., Lawseth, A.E. & English, A. 2012. Farmland<br />

conversion to non-agricultural uses in the USA and Canada: Current impacts and concerns for the future.<br />

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 10: 8–24.<br />

Gardi, C., Jeffery, S. & Saltelli, A. 2013. An estimate of potential threats levels to soil biodiversity in EU. Glob.<br />

Ch. Biol., 19: 1538–1548.<br />

Gillespie, A.J.R. 1999. Rationale for a National Annual Forest Inventory Program. J. Forestry, 97: 16-20.<br />

Gordon, D.L.A. & Janzen, M. 2013. Suburban nation? Estimating the size of Canada’s suburban population.<br />

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 30: 197–220.<br />

Grant, C.A., Buckley, W.T., Bailey, L.D. & Selles, F. 1998. Cadmium accumulation in crops. Can. J. Plant Sci.,<br />

78: 1–17.<br />

GSBI. 2014. Official web site. Global <strong>Soil</strong> Biodiversity Initiative. (Also available at http://www.globalsoilbiodiversity.<br />

org/)<br />

Harmel, D., Potter, S., Casebolt, P., Reckhow, K., Green, C. & Haney, R. 2006. Compilation of measured<br />

nutrient load data for agricultural land uses in the United States. J. Amer. Water Res. Assoc., 42: 1163- 1178.<br />

Harrison, R.B., Footen, P.W. & Strahm, B.D. 2011. Deep soil horizons: Contribution and importance to soil<br />

C pools and in assessing whole-ecosystem response to management and global change. Forest Science, 57: 67-<br />

76.<br />

Hofmann, N., Filoso, G. & Schofield, M. 2005. The loss of dependable agricultural land in Canada. Statistics<br />

Canada’s Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin, 6(1).<br />

Huang, Q. & Lobb, D.A. 2013. Uncertainty analysis for the soil erosion risk indicators. Technical supplement.<br />

Canada, Ottawa, ON, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.<br />

Jandl, R., Rodeghiero, M., Martinez, C., Cotrufo, M.F., Bampa, F., van Wesemael, B., Harrison,<br />

R.B., Guerrini, I.A., Richter, D.D., Rustad, L., Lorenz, K., Chabbi, A. & Miglietta, F. 2014. Current status,<br />

uncertainty and future needs in soil organic carbon monitoring. Science of the Total Environment, 468: 376-383.<br />

Johnson, C.E., Driscoll, C.T., Blum, J.D., Fahey, T.J., & Battles, J.J. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> chemical dynamics after<br />

calcium silicate addition to a Northern Hardwood forest. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. J., 78(4): 1458-1468.<br />

Johnson, L.C. 1987. <strong>Soil</strong> loss tolerance: Fact or myth? J. <strong>Soil</strong> & Water Conservation, 42: 155–160.<br />

Kabzems, R. 2012. Aspen and white spruce productivity is reduced by organic matter removal and soil<br />

compaction. The Forestry Chronicle, 88: 306–316.<br />

Khan, S.A., Mulvaney, R.L., Ellsworth, T.R. & Boast, C.W. 2007. The myth of nitrogen fertilization for soil<br />

carbon sequestration. J. Environ. Qual., 36: 1821–1832<br />

Kittrick, J.A., Fanning, D.S. & Hossner, L.R. 1982. Acid sulfate weathering. Special Pub. No. 10. USA, Madison,<br />

WI, <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. Soc. Am. 234 pp.<br />

Krawchuk, M.A., Moritz, M.A., Parisien, M-A., Van Dorn, J. & Hayhoe, K. 2009. Global pyrogeography:<br />

The current and future distribution of wildfire. PLOS One, 4: e 5102.<br />

Krzic, M., Bulmer, C.E., Teste, F., Dampier, L. & Rahman, S. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> properties influencing compactability<br />

of forest soils in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 84: 219–226.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

472<br />

in North America


Kurz, W.A., Dymond, C.C., White, T.M., Stinson, G., Shaw, C.H., Rampley, G.J., Smyth, C., Simpson,<br />

B.N., Neilson, E.T. & Trofymow, J.A. 2009. CBM-CFS 3: A model of carbon-dynamics in forestry and landuse<br />

change implementing IPCC standards. Ecological Modelling, 220: 480–504.<br />

Li, S., McConkey, B.G., Black, M.W. & Lobb, D.A. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion risk indicators: Technical supplement.<br />

Canada, Ottawa, ON, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.<br />

Liebig, M.S., Johnson, H.A., Hanson, J.D. & Frank, A.B. 2005. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon under switchgrass stands and<br />

cultivated cropland. Biomass Bioenergy, 28:347–354.<br />

Manassaram, D.M., Backer, L.C. & Moll, D.M. 2006. A review of nitrates in drinking water: Maternal<br />

exposure and adverse reproductive developmental outcomes. Environ. Health Persp., 114: 320-327.<br />

Masek, J.G., Cohen, W.B., Leckie, D., Wulder, M.A., Vargas, R., de Jong, B., Healey, S., Law, B., Birdsey, R., Houghton,<br />

R.A, Mildrexler, D., Goward, S. & Smith, W.B. 2011. Recent rates of forest harvest and conversion in North America.<br />

J. Geophys. Res., 116: G 00K 03.<br />

Maynard, D.G., Pare, D., Thiffault, E., Lafleur, B., Hogg, K.E. & Kishchuk, B. 2014. How do natural<br />

disturbances and human activities affect soils and tree nutrition and growth in the Canadian boreal forest?<br />

Environ. Rev., 22: 161–178.<br />

McBride, R.A., Joosse, P.J. & Wall, G. 2000. Indicator: Risk of soil compaction. In T. McRae, C.A.S. Smith &<br />

L.J. Gregorich, eds. Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture: Report of the Agri Environmental Indicator<br />

Project. A Summary, p. 16. Ottawa, Ontario, Agriculture and Agri-Food of Canada.<br />

McConkey, B.G., Li, S. & Black, M.W. 2008. Wind Erosion Risk Indicator (WindERI.) Methodology in <strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

risk indicators: Technical supplement. Ottawa, ON, Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada.<br />

McDaniel, M.D., Tiemann, L.K. & Grandy, A.S. 2014. Does agricultural crop diversity enhance soil microbial<br />

biomass and organic matter dynamics? A meta-analysis. Ecological Applications, 24: 560–570.<br />

McLauchlan, K.K., Hobbie, S.E. & Post, W.M. 2006. Conversion from agriculture to grassland builds soil<br />

organic matter on decadal timescales. Ecological Applications, 16: 143–153.<br />

Meinz, F.C. & Seip, H.M. 2004. Acid rain in Europe and the United States: An update. Environ. Sci and Policy,<br />

7: 253–265.<br />

Montgomery, D. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of<br />

Science, 104: 13268–13272.<br />

Montgomery, D.R. 2008. Dirt. USA. Berkeley, Calif, Univ. of Calif. Press.<br />

Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Canada. 2012. The State of Canada’s Forests: Annual Report 2012. (Also available at http://<br />

cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/34055.pdf.)<br />

Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Canada. 2014. Annual harvest of timber relative to the level of harvest deemed to be sustainable.<br />

(Also available at http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/sustainable-forest-management/criteria-indicators/.)<br />

NREL. 2007. Century. National Resource Ecology Laboratory. (Also available at http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/<br />

projects/century/).<br />

Nunez, M.A. & Dickie, I.A. 2014. Invasive belowground mutualists of woody plants. Biol. Invas., 16: 645–661.<br />

Ogle, S.M., Breidt, F.J., Easter, M., Williams, S., Killian, K. & Paustian, K. 2010. Scale and uncertainty<br />

in modeled soil organic carbon stock changes for USA croplands using a process-based model. Global Change<br />

Biology, 16: 810-822.<br />

Orndorff, Z.W. & Daniels, W.L. 2004. Evaluation of acid-producing sulfidic materials in Virginia highway<br />

corridors. Environ. Geol., 46: 209–216.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

473<br />

in North America


Ouimet, R., Arp, P.A., Watmough, S.A., Aherne, J. & DeMerchant, I. 2006. Determination and mapping<br />

of critical loads and exceedances for upland forests in eastern Canada. Water, Air and <strong>Soil</strong> Pollution, 172: 57–66.<br />

Schindler, D.W., Hecky, R.E. & McCullough, G.K. 2012. The rapid eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg: Greening<br />

under global change. J. Great Lakes Res., 38: 6-13.<br />

Sharpley, A. & Wang, X. 2014. Managing agricultural phosphorus for water quality: Lessons from the ISA<br />

and China. J. Environ. Sci., 26: 1770-1782.<br />

Sheppard, S.C. & Sanipelli, B. 2012. Trace elements in feed, manure and manured soils. J. Environ. Qual., 41:<br />

1846-1856.<br />

Sheppard, S.C., Grant, C.A. & Drury, C.F. 2009. Trace elements in Ontario soils – mobility, concentration<br />

profiles, and evidence of non-point-source pollution. Can. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 89: 489-499.<br />

Simoes, R.P., Raper, R.L., Arriaga, F.J., Balkcom, K.S. & Shaw, J.N. 2009. Using conservation systems to<br />

alleviate soil compaction in a southeastern United States Ultisol. <strong>Soil</strong> & Tillage Research, 104: 106–114.<br />

Skousen, J., Simmons, J., McDonald, L. & Ziemkiewicz, P. 2002. Acid-base accounting to predict postmining<br />

drainage quality on surface mines. J. Env. Qual., 31: 2034–2044.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Landscapes of Canada Working Group. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong> Landscapes of Canada v 3.1.1 Agriculture and Agri-Food<br />

Canada. (digital map and database at 1:1 million scale) (Also available at http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/slc/index.<br />

html).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff, 2014. USA General <strong>Soil</strong> Map (STATSGO 2). Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Service,<br />

United States Department of Agriculture.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff. 1999. <strong>Soil</strong> taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys.<br />

2nd edition. Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Service. USA Department of Agriculture Handbook. 436 pp.<br />

Statistics Canada. 2009. Total and urban land area, 1996, 2001 (modified) and 2006. (Also available at http://<br />

www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/92f0138m/2008001/t/4054949-eng.htm.)<br />

Statistics Canada. 2015. Census of Agriculture, tillage practices used to prepare land for seeding. (Also available<br />

at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a 26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=0040205&pattern=0040200..0040242<br />

&tabMode=dataTable&srchLan=-1&p 1=1&p 2=50).<br />

Sverdrup, H. & Warfvinge, P. 1993. The effects of soil acidification on the growth of trees, grass and herbs as<br />

expressed by the (Ca+Mg+K)/Al ratio. Reports in Ecology and Environmental Engineering 2. Sweden, Lund, Lund<br />

University, Department of Chemical Engineering II.<br />

Tarnocai, C. & Bockheim, J.G. 2011. Cryosolic soils of Canada: Genesis, distribution, and classification.<br />

Canadian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 91: 749-762.<br />

Taylor, D.L., Hollingsworth, T.N., McFarland, J.W., Lennon, N.J., Nusbaum, C. & Ruess, R.W. 2014. A<br />

first comprehensive census of fungi in soil reveals both hyperdiversity and fine-scale niche partitioning. Ecol.<br />

Monographs, 84: 3-20.<br />

Transport Canada. 2012. Road transportation. (Also available at http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/anremenu-3042.htm.)<br />

United States Department of Transportation. 2014. Domestic physical system extent—Bureau of Transportation<br />

statistics, (Also available at http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/north_american_<br />

transportation_in_figures/html/table_11_1.html.).<br />

United States Geological Survey. 2014. Irrigation water use. (Also available at http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuir.<br />

html.)<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

474<br />

in North America


USDA. 2011. Resource Conservation Act (RCA) appraisal – <strong>Soil</strong> and Water <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Act. Chapter 3.<br />

The State of the Land.<br />

USDA. 2013a. Summary Report: 2010 National <strong>Resources</strong> Inventory. Washington, DC, Natural <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Conservation Service and Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University, Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology.<br />

USDA. 2013b. Rapid carbon assessment (RaCA) methodology. Sampling and Initial Summary. USDA, 24 May<br />

2013.<br />

USDA. 2014. Restoring America’s wetlands: A private lands conservation success story. National <strong>Resources</strong><br />

Conservation Service.<br />

van Bochove, E., Thériault, G., Denault, J.-T., Dechmi, F., Rousseau, A.N. & Allaire, S.E. 2010. Risk of<br />

Water Contamination by Phosphorus (IROWC-P). In W. Eilers, R. MacKay, L. Graham & A. Lefebvre, eds.<br />

Environmental Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture, Agri-Environmental Indicator Report Series, Report No.3, pp.<br />

87—93. Canada, Ottawa, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.<br />

VandenBygaart, A.J., Gregorich, E.G. & Angers, D.A. 2003. Influence of agricultural management on soil<br />

organic carbon: A compendium and assessment of Canadian studies. Can. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., 83: 363-380.<br />

Vincent, W.F., Whyte, L.G., Lovejoy, C., Greer, C.W., Laurion, I., Suttle, C.A., Corbeil, J. & Mueller, D.R.<br />

2009. Arctic microbial ecosystems and impacts of extreme warming during the International PolarYear. Polar<br />

Sci., 3: 171–180.<br />

Wagg, C., Bender, S.F., Widmer, F. & van der Heijden, M.G.A. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity and soil community<br />

composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111: 5266–<br />

5270.<br />

Waltman, S.W., Olson, C., West, L., Moore, A. & Thompson, J. 2010. Preparing a soil organic carbon inventory<br />

for the United States using soil surveys and site measurements. IUSS World Congress of <strong>Soil</strong> Science. Why carbon<br />

stocks at depth are important, 1–6 August 2010.<br />

Wardle, D., Klironomos, J.N., Setala, H., Putten, W.H. & Wall, D. 2004. Ecological linkages between<br />

aboveground and belowground biota. Science, 304: 1629–1633.<br />

Watmough, S.A. & Hutchinson, T.C. 2004. The quantification and distribution of pollution Pb at a<br />

woodland in rural south central Ontario, Canada. Environ. Pollut, 128: 419-428.<br />

West, T.O., Brandt, C.C., Wilson, B.S., Hellwinckel, C.M., Tyler, D.D., Marland, G., De La Torre Ugarte,<br />

D.G. & Larson, J.A. 2008. Estimating regional changes in soil carbon with high spatial resolution. <strong>Soil</strong> Science<br />

Society of America Journal, 72: 285–294.<br />

Whitfield, C.J., Aherne, J., Watmough, S.A. & McDonald, M. 2010. Estimating the sensitivity of forest soils<br />

to acid deposition in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta, Canada. Journal of Limnology, 69(1): 201–208.<br />

Wiebe, B.H., Eilers, R.G. & Brierley, J.A. 2006. The presence and extent of moderate to severe soil salinity on the<br />

Canadian Prairies. Proceedings of the Manitoba <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society Annual Meetings. Canada, Winnipeg, MB.<br />

Wiebe, B.H., Eilers, W.D. & Brierley, J.A. 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> salinity. In W. Eilers, R. MacKay, L. Graham & A. Lefebvre,<br />

eds. Environmental sustainability of Canadian agriculture: Agri-environmental indicator report series – Report No. 3,<br />

pp. 66-71. Ottawa, Ontario, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.<br />

Wolkowski, R. & Lowery, B. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction: Causes, concerns and cures. (Also available at http://www.<br />

soils.wisc.edu/extension/pubs/A 3367.pdf.).<br />

Xiao, Q., Bartens, J., Wu, C., McPherson, G., Simpson, J. & O’Neil-Dunne, J. 2013. Urban Forest Inventory<br />

and Assessment Pilot Project phase two report. USA, California, City of San Jose.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

475<br />

in North America


15 | Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Change in the Southwest Pacific<br />

Regional Coordinator/Lead Author: N.J. McKenzie (ITPS/Australia)<br />

Contributors: J.A. Baldock (Australia), M.R. Balks (New Zealand), M. Camps Arbestain (ITPS/New Zealand),<br />

L.M. Condron (New Zealand), M. Elder-Ratutokarua (Secretariat Pacific Community/Fiji), M.J. Grundy<br />

(Australia), A.E. Hewitt (New Zealand), F.M. Kelliher (New Zealand), J.F. Leys (Australia), N.J. McKenzie (ITPS/<br />

Australia), R.W. McDowell (New Zealand), R.J. Morrison (Fiji/Australia), N.R. Schoknecht (Australia).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

476<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


15.1 | Introduction<br />

The Southwest Pacific region includes the 22 island nations of the Pacific1, New Zealand and Australia<br />

(Figure 15.1). The landscapes of the region are very diverse ranging from a large continental land mass through<br />

to tens of thousands of small islands across the enormous expanse of the southwest Pacific Ocean. There<br />

are extensive ancient flat lands through to some of the youngest and most tectonically active landscapes on<br />

the planet. Temperature and rainfall ranges are large because of the breadth of latitudes and elevations. As a<br />

consequence, the soils of the region are also diverse. The strongly weathered soils in humid tropical areas and<br />

the vast expanses of old soils across the Australian continent are particularly susceptible to disturbance and<br />

this is where some of the more intractable problems of soil management occur today.<br />

15.2 | The major land types in the region<br />

The major land types in the region owe their origin to the relative movement of the Earth’s lithospheric<br />

plates, and in particular to the interaction between the Australian and Pacific Plates. The breakup of the<br />

supercontinent of Gondwana included the separation, around 96 million years ago, of the Australian Plate<br />

from the Antarctic Plate. The Australian Plate includes the present day island continent of Australia, Papua<br />

New Guinea, a small part of the South Island of New Zealand, and some islands including New Caledonia<br />

and Norfolk Island. The Australian Plate is moving northwards at approximately 70 mm yr -1 , colliding with the<br />

Eurasian Plate. This has created the mountains of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, the highest peaks being<br />

Puncak Jaya (4 848 m) and Mt Wilhelm (4 509 m) respectively. The Pacific Plate is moving westwards towards<br />

the Australian Plate. Movement along the transform boundary of these plates has created the Southern Alps<br />

of New Zealand (Aoraki/Mt Cook 3 724 m) and related geological activity has resulted in substantial volcanic<br />

activity around the aptly named Pacific Rim of Fire. New Zealand straddles the boundary of the Australian and<br />

Pacific Plate. Most of the island nations of the Pacific are volcanic in origin and exist today as either hilly or<br />

mountainous features formed by the volcanoes themselves, or as atoll islands.<br />

1 These countries are American Samoa, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New<br />

Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Wallis<br />

and Futuna.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

477<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Figure 15.1 Nations in the Southwest Pacific region and the extent of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesian cultures. Figure based on<br />

base map imagery: exclusive economic zone boundaries (EEZ)v 8 2014, Natural Earth 11 3.2.0<br />

Ancient landscapes<br />

After separating from Antarctica, the Australasian landmass moved northwards into warmer latitudes at<br />

the same time that the globe was cooling during the Pleistocene. The development of the circumpolar Southern<br />

Ocean further moderated the climate of the Australasian landmass. The resulting relative stability meant<br />

that biological evolution and soil development occurred on similar timescales and without major phases of<br />

interruption. This is in contrast to much of the Northern Hemisphere where repeated glaciations renewed<br />

landscapes and ensured that large areas have relatively young soils. This long history of soil development has<br />

many implications today for land management in the region.<br />

Low-relief landscapes of Australasia<br />

The western two-thirds of the Australian continent are dominated by ancient landscapes and strongly<br />

weathered soils. Some of these soils bear the imprint of previous climates with some unexpected patterns of<br />

soil distribution – very acid leached soils (normally associated with humid regions) now occur in deserts, and<br />

deeply weathered soil profiles (tens of metres deep) occur in Mediterranean climates with limited leaching.<br />

Vast areas of sandy soils have formed from the predominantly acid-igneous and sedimentary parent materials.<br />

Nutrient status is very poor and micronutrient deficiencies are common. In the south, substantial quantities<br />

of salt have accumulated in the low relief landscapes. As a consequence, sodic and saline soils are widespread<br />

and human-induced salinity is a major land management problem.<br />

Uplifted and eroded continental margins<br />

The soils and landscapes of the eastern third of Australia are dominated by the influence of the Great<br />

Escarpment (Ollier, 1982) – a landscape feature that extends for 3 000 km from Northern Queensland to<br />

Victoria. The Great Escarpment was formed by uplift associated with the passive continental margin to the<br />

east. Inland of the Escarpment, the soils and landscapes tend to be older but more clay-rich than in the west<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

478<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


of the country. The undulating and low relief landscapes also have saline and sodic soils. Large sedimentary<br />

basins (e.g. Murray–Darling Basin) have moderately fertile soils although the current climate is highly variable.<br />

The elevated tablelands adjacent to the Great Escarpment have significant areas of basalt and their<br />

associated alluvial landscapes have some of Australia’s best soils for agriculture. Likewise, the dissected<br />

landscapes to the east and south of the Great Escarpment where most Australians live are much younger. The<br />

coastal river systems have fertile alluvial landscapes.<br />

The remnants in New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand<br />

The areas of the Australian Plate in New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand share ecosystems<br />

with a common evolutionary origin (e.g. Antarctic flora including Araucaria and Nothofagus). They typically<br />

have high levels of biodiversity although the above-ground systems are much better documented that those<br />

in the soil. These remnant areas are on the more tectonically active fringes of the Australian Plate and they<br />

have greater relief as a result.<br />

Young active landscapes<br />

New Zealand<br />

The tectonically active landscapes of New Zealand can be broadly divided into the axis of high mountain<br />

ranges, the basin and range provinces on either side of these ranges, the Taupo Volcanic Zone on the North<br />

Island, and the lowlands and sedimentary basins. Only 15 percent of the land area is flat. The climate of the<br />

country ranges from sub-tropical in the north to sub-Antarctic in the far south. Sixty percent of New Zealand<br />

is >300 m above sea-level and there are about 3 000 mid-latitude mountain glaciers.<br />

A climate sequence of Luvisols, dystric Cambisols and Podzols cover 69 percent of the country and are<br />

derived from sedimentary rocks (greywacke, sandstone, siltstone and mudstone as colluvium, alluvium and<br />

loess). Significant soils in the remaining areas include vitric Andosols derived from rhyolytic tephra (North<br />

Island) and silandic Andosols, Nitisols and Ferralsols derived from andesitic tephra and basalt (mainly on the<br />

North Island).<br />

Papua New Guinea<br />

Papua New Guinea has five major landscape regions (Löffler, 1977, 1979). The Southern Plains and Lowlands,<br />

up to 400 km wide, are in the west of the country. Most of this region is less than 30 m above sea level and<br />

includes the extensive alluvial plains of the Fly River. There are two mountainous regions that occupy the<br />

majority of the country. The Central Ranges run the length of the mainland and have very high relief with many<br />

peaks between 3 000 m and 4 000 m. The Northern Ranges run parallel and descend to a discontinuous<br />

and narrow coastal plain. Between these ranges are the plains, lowlands and wetlands of the Inter-montane<br />

Trough, many of which are associated with the Sepik River. The Islands Region is diverse and includes active<br />

volcanoes (e.g. New Britain) particularly along the Northern Bismarck Island Arc. Fringing coral reefs and<br />

raised coral limestone landforms are common in this tectonically active area.<br />

Island landscapes and atolls<br />

As noted earlier, most of the smaller islands in Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia are volcanic in origin.<br />

Those with hilly or mountainous features were formed by the volcanoes themselves and they may have<br />

fringing coral reefs, elevated coral platforms, or both. The low lying atoll islands have been formed by corals<br />

growing on extinct seamounts or volcanoes that have eroded or subsided. Many of the atoll islands are only a<br />

few meters above sea level and are therefore vulnerable to sea-level rise.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

479<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


15.3 | Climate<br />

The climate of the region is strongly influenced by circulation patterns and processes in the Pacific Ocean<br />

(the Southern Oscillation) that bring La Niña conditions associated with floods and cyclones and El Niño<br />

conditions that are associated with droughts. A similar circulation pattern in the Indian Ocean (the Indian<br />

Ocean Dipole) influences drought across southern Australia. The Southern Annular Mode of the Southern<br />

Ocean affects weather and climate in New Zealand and southern Australia. These large-scale circulation<br />

processes interact with the landscape (e.g. through orographic processes and in accord with the scale of<br />

the land mass) to exert a strong control on land use and management across the region. Some of the most<br />

significant features are as follows.<br />

• Australia has a very highyear-to-year rainfall variability, and major droughts and wet periods occur on<br />

a decadal scale. Resilient systems of land and water resource management are essential to deal with<br />

this level of climate variability.<br />

• Landscapes in the tropics and sub-tropics experience cyclones and very high intensities of rainfall<br />

especially in coastal areas. Maintenance of surface cover is essential to avoid extremely high rates of<br />

soil erosion.<br />

• The wet-dry tropics of northern Australia and some Pacific Islands receive most of their rainfall in three<br />

consecutive months and the remainder of the year is severely water-limited. This restricts options for<br />

land use unless some form of irrigation is possible. The harsh climate, in conjunction with the ancient<br />

and strongly weathered soils, largely accounts for the dramatic difference in land use and population<br />

density of Northern Australia when compared to nearby Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.<br />

In some parts of the region, there is a sensitive interplay between rainfall, evaporation and the capacity<br />

of soil to store water. Many soils in southern Australia have a limited capacity to store water and this makes<br />

them especially vulnerable to small changes in the distribution and amount of rainfall. As a consequence,<br />

relatively small changes in rainfall and temperature caused by climate change are having a significant impact<br />

on farming systems and water resources (Reisinger et al., 2014). Likewise, sea-level rise caused by global<br />

warming (Nurse et al., 2014) creates an immediate and serious threat to thousands of low lying atoll islands<br />

in the region.<br />

15.4 | Land use<br />

15.4.1 | Historical context<br />

The history of human settlement has occurred in several distinct waves over a very long period. In every<br />

case the impact on soils has been substantial and in some cases catastrophic. The earliest records indicate<br />

that human arrival occurred in Papua New Guinea and Australia at least 45 000 years BP. At this time, sea<br />

levels were much lower and a land bridge connected the two countries forming the single continent of Sahul.<br />

This continent was widely colonized by 35 000 years BP (O’Connell and Allen 2004).<br />

It is difficult to assess the impact on soils caused by the initial colonization of the region, particularly by<br />

the Australian Aborigines, because it coincides with a period of rapid climate change towards the end of the<br />

Pleistocene. In Australia, major changes in fire, vegetation, and wildlife occurred (Roberts, Jones and Smith,<br />

1990; Roberts et al., 1994; Bowler et al., 2003; Turney et al., 2001). The cumulative effect on soils caused<br />

by humans and other environmental drivers during this time may rival the later direct impact caused by<br />

Europeans, although the latter has been concentrated into a very short period.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

480<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


The broad area of Near Oceania (including present-day Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu,<br />

New Caledonia and Fiji) was occupied by peoples that were to remain relatively isolated for more than 25 000<br />

years giving rise to the remarkably diverse cultures and languages of Melanesia – for example, more than 800<br />

languages are still spoken today in Papua New Guinea. It is likely that agriculture was invented in the New<br />

Guinea highlands at about the same time (10 000 years BP) as it appeared in other parts of the world, and<br />

that agricultural development and plant domestication in New Guinea was independent of what happened<br />

elsewhere in the world until about 3 500 years BP (Denham et al., 2003).<br />

The Polynesian and Micronesian peoples arrived in relatively recent times and their ancestors were<br />

primarily from East Asia. The development of sailing approximately 3 000 years BP enabled their colonization<br />

of the islands in Remote Oceania as far east as Tonga and Samoa where Polynesian culture then developed<br />

(Friedlaender et al., 2008).<br />

When the Polynesian Maoris first arrived in New Zealand c. 1200 CE, most of the land was covered by dense<br />

forest which they began to clear by burning to facilitate settlement and hunting (McGlone, 1989). Most of the<br />

forest clearance occurred between 1350 and 1550, with impacts on soils and landscapes that were greatest in<br />

the drier east coast regions of both main islands. By 1840 just prior to large scale European settlement, the<br />

forest cover had been reduced from 85 percent (23 million ha) to 53 percent (14.3 million ha) (Condron and Di,<br />

2002).<br />

15.4.2 | Nineteenth and twentieth centuries<br />

European colonization was widespread across the region during the nineteenth and twentieth century. The<br />

impact on soils in many districts, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, was profound and in some areas<br />

initially catastrophic. In Australia, the severity of soil degradation, particularly in the 100 years after 1850, was<br />

extreme, culminating in the dust bowl years of the 1930s and 1940s. In New Zealand, the clearing of steep hill<br />

country led to widespread erosion and sedimentation in river systems.<br />

Other countries in the region (e.g. Papua New Guinea, Fiji, French Polynesia) went through distinct phases<br />

of land use in this period. Subsistence shifting-agriculture was disrupted by European commercial farming<br />

(e.g. pastoralism, coconut plantations, cotton and coffee) which often involved widespread clearing of the<br />

tropical lowland forests. Sugar cane industries were established in some countries and the logging of the<br />

indigenous timber resource was widespread. Urban areas expanded and in some countries agriculture spread<br />

onto more marginal lands with intensification of land use being widespread.<br />

The legacy of the early and destructive phases of land use is still evident throughout the region. Many<br />

landscape processes take decades to stabilize after a change in land use and as a consequence, the full extent<br />

of soil change caused by prior land use across the region has yet to be fully expressed. The most significant<br />

and potentially irreversible causes of soil change across the region are discussed in the following paragraphs.<br />

Clearing: In Australia, the removal of deep-rooted native vegetation and its replacement with annual crops<br />

and perennial pastures has in most cases led to a net loss of organic carbon, nutrients and less efficient use by<br />

plants of the available rainfall. This can lead to rising groundwater levels and, in some cases, to dryland salinity.<br />

The time between initial disturbance and the longer term equilibrium for different soil properties can range<br />

from a few decades (e.g. organic carbon in light-textured soils (Sanderman, Farquharson and Baldock, 2010)<br />

through to many decades or centuries (e.g. dryland salinity in regional-scale groundwater systems (NLWRA,<br />

2001b)). Conversely, in New Zealand, carbon and nitrogen stocks increase (in particular in hill country with<br />

low stocking rates) while C/N ratios decline when converting from native vegetation to pasture (Schipper and<br />

Sparling, 2011; Sparling et al., 2014).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

481<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Mining: Major disruptions to landscapes were caused by mining, beginning with the gold-rush era (from<br />

the 1850s onwards) in Australia and New Zealand. Alluvial landscapes in particular were dug up, turned over,<br />

sluiced and degraded. Enormous quantities of sediments were generated and soils and river systems were<br />

damaged irreparably. The environmental controls around mining operations in these two countries have<br />

improved in more recent decades but this has not been the case elsewhere in the region.<br />

Mining operations on various Pacific islands have had major environmental and social impacts. Examples<br />

include the Ok Tedi (see below) and Porgera mines in Papua New Guinea, extensive strip mining for phosphorus<br />

in the small country of Nauru where >90 percent of the original soils have been removed (Morrison and<br />

Manner, 2005), and the ill-fated Bougainville Copper mine.<br />

During the last decade, the area of land used for mining and extraction of energy resources (e.g. coal and<br />

coal seam gas) has expanded significantly in eastern Australia. This has generated conflicts and difficult policy<br />

decisions on land use because some of the highest potential areas for coal and coal seam gas coincide with<br />

high-quality agricultural land (Chen and Randall, 2013).<br />

Excessive cultivation and compaction: This was widespread during the first half of the 20th century and<br />

it is still a problem in some parts of the region. The economic cost of compaction caused primarily by heavy<br />

machines and animals is likely to be large but it remains unquantified.<br />

Grazing: Excessive grazing damages soil quickly because removal of cover leads directly to erosion. It<br />

can also permanently remove nutrients unless replenished with fertilizer. Large areas across the Australian<br />

rangelands have been affected (Bastin, 2008). In New Zealand, conversion of forested hill country to pastures<br />

has had a large impact on soil erosion.<br />

Rabbits and other feral animals: Wild grey rabbits were introduced to Australia in 1860 and within a decade<br />

they reached plague proportions. Their main effect was to exacerbate over-grazing caused by stock, leading<br />

to bare ground and erosion by water and wind. Rabbit plagues continued throughout the first half of the 20th<br />

century and were particularly devastating during the 1940s. Numbers were reduced greatly when in 1950 the<br />

myxomatosis virus was introduced. The pest gradually increased again in the following decades but was again<br />

reduced when the calici virus was released in the 1990s. Rabbits and other feral animals (e.g. goats and pigs)<br />

degrade soils in other parts of the region. They are a significant problem in New Zealand and on sub-Antarctic<br />

islands such as Macquarie Island which has been severely eroded in recent decades because of rabbits.<br />

15.4.3 | Contemporary land-use dynamics<br />

At the end of the twentieth century, diverse systems of land use operated throughout the Southwest Pacific<br />

ranging from traditional systems (e.g. subsistence shifting-agriculture in Papua New Guinea and some of the<br />

Pacific Islands) through to technologically advanced systems (e.g. highly mechanized agriculture in Australia<br />

and New Zealand). While the general patterns of land use have been relatively stable for several decades,<br />

significant changes are continuing. Those with the greatest impact on soil resources are summarised in Table<br />

15.1. There are large differences in the degree of economic development in the region (Table 15.2) as the region<br />

contains some of the world’s poorest nations and some of the richest. There are also large differences within<br />

nations. Twenty percent of Australia is owned and managed by economically disadvantaged Indigenous<br />

Australians (SOE, 2011). Approximately 5.6 percent of New Zealand is Maori land, a major contributor to<br />

New Zealand’s economy. About 26 percent of Maori businesses are in the primary sector, principally farming,<br />

forestry and horticulture. In some countries (e.g. Solomon Islands and Vanuatu) increasing rural populations<br />

have led to significantly greater use of productive land in the subsistence shifting-cultivation systems with<br />

much reduced fallow periods and subsequent declines in soil quality.<br />

Primary industries play a major role in most countries. The development of mineral and energy resources<br />

has been a key driver of economic growth, particularly in Australia and Papua New Guinea. New Zealand and<br />

Australia are major exporters of agricultural products.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

482<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Country and land-use driver<br />

Implication for soil resources<br />

Australia<br />

Commodity prices<br />

Cessation of land clearing<br />

Expansion of mining and energy<br />

industries<br />

Agricultural land management<br />

Population growth and urban<br />

expansion<br />

Drying of southwest Western<br />

Australia<br />

Land degradation<br />

Disruption to, or intensification of, current systems of land use and<br />

management<br />

Carbon stocks in areas under native vegetation are protected.<br />

Intensification of land use occurs elsewhere<br />

Loss of productive soils used for agriculture<br />

Intensification of land use may increase some threats (e.g.<br />

acidification, nutrient imbalance) but improved systems of soil<br />

management are reducing others (e.g. compaction, carbon loss,<br />

contamination)<br />

Sealing and capping of land<br />

Risks to farming systems, forestry and other plantations<br />

Decreased viability of current systems of land use (e.g. southern<br />

rangelands of Australia)<br />

New Zealand<br />

Commodity prices<br />

Intensification of agriculture<br />

Expansion of forestry<br />

Urban expansion<br />

Disruption to, or intensification of, current systems of land use and<br />

management<br />

Intensification of land use may increase some threats (e.g. nutrient<br />

imbalance) but improved systems of soil management are reducing<br />

others (e.g. compaction, carbon loss, contamination) and other<br />

off-site impacts are likely (e.g. eutrophication of waterways,<br />

increased emissions of GHG)<br />

Reduced risk of erosion and potential changes in carbon stocks<br />

Sealing and capping of land<br />

Papua New Guinea<br />

Rapid population growth<br />

Unsustainable logging<br />

Mining<br />

Reduced rotation length in traditional subsistence systems leading<br />

to fertility decline<br />

Erosion, fertility decline, reduced carbon stocks, loss of biodiversity<br />

Immediate site impacts and risks of off-site contamination<br />

Fiji<br />

Commodity prices<br />

Forest management<br />

Urban expansion<br />

Disruption to established systems of land use and management<br />

(particularly for the sugar industry)<br />

Risks of erosion, fertility decline, reduced carbon stocks, loss of<br />

biodiversity<br />

Sealing and capping of versatile land<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

483<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Solomon Islands<br />

Unsustainable logging<br />

Erosion, fertility decline, reduced carbon stocks, loss of biodiversity<br />

Low Lying Atoll Islands<br />

Local production of fresh food<br />

Sea-level rise<br />

Urban expansion<br />

Improved management of limited soil resources<br />

Salinization, loss of soil resources<br />

Sealing and capping of land<br />

Table 15.1 Summary of current primary drivers of land-use and the associated implications for soil resources in the Southwest Pacific<br />

region.<br />

Country<br />

Population 2015<br />

Thousands<br />

Population 2050<br />

Thousands<br />

GDP per capita USD<br />

(2009-2013)<br />

Australia 23 923 33 735 67 468<br />

New Zealand 4 596 5 778 41 556<br />

Melanesia<br />

Fiji 893 918 4 572<br />

New Caledonia 263 364 -<br />

Papua New Guinea 7 632 13 092 2 088<br />

Solomon Islands 584 1010 1 954<br />

Vanuatu 264 473 3 303<br />

Total Melanesia 9 636 15 858<br />

Polynesia<br />

American Samoa 56 62 -<br />

Cook Islands 21 24 -<br />

French Polynesia 283 337 -<br />

Niue 1 1 -<br />

Samoa 193 242 3 647<br />

Tokelau 1 1 -<br />

Tonga 106 140 4 427<br />

Tuvalu 10 12 3 861<br />

Wallis and Futuna Islands 13 13 -<br />

Total Polynesia 684 832<br />

Micronesia<br />

Federate States of Micronesia 104 130 3 235<br />

Kiribati 106 156 1 651<br />

Marshall Islands 53 67 3 325<br />

Nauru 10 11 -<br />

Northern Mariana Islands 55 52 -<br />

Palau 21 28 11 810<br />

Total Micronesia 519 671<br />

Table 15.2 Current population, project population (UNDESA, 2013) and Gross Domestic Product per capita (World Bank, 2014) for<br />

countries of the region.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

484<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


15.5 | Threats to soils in the region<br />

15.5.1 | Erosion by wind and water<br />

The rates of soil erosion occurring today in Australia and New Zealand are significantly less than in previous<br />

decades. The situation in the rest of the region is less clear. Very fast rates of erosion are occurring in countries<br />

with uncontrolled land clearing and logging (e.g. Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands). Unsustainable<br />

rates of erosion are also likely to be occurring in marginal and hilly lands used for agriculture in some Pacific<br />

countries, for example Fiji (Liedtke, 1989).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion by wind is a significant problem in Australia and an account of trends and current status is<br />

presented below. It is not common elsewhere in the region because of the humid climate, although drier areas<br />

in New Zealand (primarily on the South Island) are prone to wind erosion (Eyles, 1983).<br />

Australia<br />

Current rates of soil erosion by water in Australia are much less than the peak periods just after land clearing.<br />

In many parts of the country, widespread gully erosion occurred during this time and the hydrological regime<br />

of many river systems was changed. In southern Australia, gully and river bank erosion are the dominant<br />

sources of sediment supplied to streams. Gully erosion in southern Australia has now been largely stabilised,<br />

but gullies are still actively forming in northern Queensland and in some agricultural regions of Western<br />

Australia (NLWRA, 2001a).<br />

Despite the apparent stabilization, current rates of soil erosion by water across much of Australia now<br />

exceed soil formation rates by a factor of at least several hundred and, in some areas, several thousand. As<br />

a result, the expected half-life of soils (the time for half the soil to be eroded) in some upland areas used for<br />

agriculture ranges from less than a century to several hundred years. The latest assessment concluded that<br />

soil erosion by water in Australia is still at unsustainable rates, but there are large uncertainties about the time<br />

until soil loss will have a critical impact on agricultural productivity (SOE, 2011; Bui et al., 2010; Bui, Hancock<br />

and Wilkinson, 2011). Environmental impacts of excessive sedimentation and nutrient delivery on inland<br />

waters, estuaries and coasts are already occurring.<br />

It is estimated that up to 10 million ha of land have less than 500 years until the soil’s A-horizon (effectively<br />

the more fertile topsoil) will be lost to erosion. Most of this land is in humid subtropical Queensland. Integrated<br />

studies of soil formation and erosion using a variety of techniques will be needed to better understand<br />

the extent, severity and significance of the problem. However, it is clear that a concerted program of soil<br />

conservation is essential to control this chronic form of land degradation across large areas of Australia. The<br />

problem is arguably having its greatest environmental impact on the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef.<br />

The latest scientific consensus is that the decline of marine water quality associated with terrestrial runoff<br />

from the adjacent catchments is a major cause of the current poor state of many of the key marine ecosystems<br />

of the Great Barrier Reef. The main source of excess nutrients, fine sediments and pesticides from Great Barrier<br />

Reef catchments is diffuse source pollution from agriculture (Brodie et al., 2013).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

485<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Figure 15.2 Change in the percentage area of all land prepared for crops and pastures under different tillage practices in Australia,<br />

1996-2010 Source: SOE, 2011.<br />

Land management practices have improved significantly during the past few decades, due to better grazing<br />

practices, adoption of conservation tillage, enforcement of forestry codes and soil conservation measures in<br />

engineering (e.g. relating to road construction and urban development).<br />

Ground-based monitoring of management practices and land cover along with data on land-management<br />

practices (SOE, 2011) reveal a pattern of:<br />

• more careful grazing and maintenance of effective land cover at critical times of the year<br />

• improved adoption of conservation practices, especially across the cropping lands of southern Australia<br />

• an associated large decline in the amount of tillage in farming systems (Figure 15.2)<br />

New Zealand<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> loss by erosion is a major problem in many areas of New Zealand due to a combination of factors<br />

including soil type, topography and climate, as well as the type and associated intensity of land use (especially<br />

pastoral agriculture).<br />

Eyles (1983) provided the first systematic inventory of soil erosion in New Zealand and made the following<br />

observations and estimates. Surface erosion occurs mainly on the South Island. In 1983 sheet erosion<br />

affected 10 million ha of the country, while wind erosion affected 3 million ha (the total area of New Zealand<br />

is approximately 27 million ha). Mass movement occurred mainly on the North Island and slip erosion was<br />

estimated to affect 7 million ha. Fluvial erosion also occurred mainly in the North Island with rill and gully<br />

erosion estimated to affect 2 million ha. The study concluded that a total of 9 million ha of farmed land in New<br />

Zealand was at risk of significant erosion, although the level of risk was variable. The large scale afforestation<br />

of hill country and steep-land pasture since 1983 (see case study below) will have substantially reduced rates of<br />

soil erosion (especially sheet and slip erosion). However, forest harvesting results in significant soil disturbance<br />

and this will increase the risk of erosion when the first rotation forest is harvested and the second rotation<br />

established.<br />

Dymond (2010) analysed erosion rates in order to refine the national carbon budget because soil erosion<br />

in New Zealand results in the large export of sediment and particulate organic carbon (POC) directly to the<br />

sea. The North Island of New Zealand was estimated to export 1.9 (−0.5/+1.0) million tonnes of POC per year<br />

to the sea, and to sequester 1.25 (−0.3 /+0.6) million tonnes of carbon per year from the atmosphere through<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

486<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


egenerating soils. The South Island was estimated to export 2.9 (−0.7/+1.5) million tonnes of POC per year, and<br />

to sequester approximately the same amount. Dymond (2010) assumed that exported carbon is buried at sea<br />

with an efficiency of 80 percent. This gives New Zealand a net carbon sink of 3.1 (−2.0/+2.5) million tonnes per<br />

year (equivalent to about 45 percent of New Zealand’s fossil fuel carbon emissions in 1990). There is essentially<br />

a ’conveyor-belt’ transfer of carbon from the atmosphere to soils regenerating from erosion and to the sea<br />

floor where carbon is permanently buried. The large magnitude of the net sink is primarily due to tectonically<br />

driven uplift and erosion combined with high biological productivity. The degree to which other elevated and<br />

humid islands in the Pacific can operate as a net sink has not been determined.<br />

Pacific Islands<br />

The high rainfall and steep lands in many of the larger Pacific Island countries make them vulnerable to soil<br />

erosion. Understanding the significance of this erosion requires information on both rates of soil formation<br />

and the baseline rates of sediment movement in different landscapes. The latter can be much larger than in<br />

temperate regions and relatively fast rates of erosion around 50 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 have been recorded in heavily<br />

forested landscapes in Fiji (Glatthaar, 1988; Liedtke, 1989) and Samoa (Terry, Garimella and Kostaschuk, 2002;<br />

Terry, Kostaschuk and Garimella, 2006). Tropical cyclones, intense rainstorms, steep slopes and landslides are<br />

key factors.<br />

The desire for economic development has led to increasing areas of good quality soil being used for cash<br />

crops such as coffee and cocoa and for cattle production. These factors in conjunction with population<br />

pressures are forcing small-scale agriculture onto steeper less suitable lands. Logging, whether managed or<br />

illegal, increases the pressure even further. Condron and Di (2002) indicate that rates of soil loss by erosion in<br />

these areas are typically between 10 to 90 tonnes ha -1 yr -1 (see also Asquith, Kooge and Morrison, 1994; Liedtke,<br />

1989). Accelerated soil erosion has also been associated with plantations, particularly on marginal sloping<br />

land.<br />

Although most atolls are away from the cyclone belt in the Southwest Pacific, a few have been severely<br />

eroded by large storms. The impacts are devastating as much of the limited soil resource is washed away, and<br />

also what is left becomes highly salinized and of limited productive capacity. This was particularly noted on<br />

Funafuti, Tuvalu following cyclone Bebe in 1972 (Maragos, Baines and Beveridge, 1973).<br />

Sub-Antarctic Islands<br />

Several sub-Antarctic islands in the Southwest Pacific region continue to have high rates of soil erosion.<br />

Macquarie Island, for example, is an isolated island in the Southern Ocean that provides a critical habitat for<br />

migratory species. Macquarie Island has been severely eroded and approximately AUD $25 million has been<br />

spent in recent years on habitat restoration programmes, mainly for the eradication of rabbits.<br />

15.5.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon change<br />

Most of the region experienced large losses of soil carbon when land was first cleared for agriculture.<br />

The major phases of clearing in each country were noted above. In some countries clearing associated with<br />

uncontrolled logging continues today, for example in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands (Moorehead,<br />

2011). The initial disruption to soil caused by clearing usually results in a significant loss of nutrients. Organic<br />

matter is oxidised and the removal of surface cover (litter and protective vegetation) makes the soil more<br />

prone to erosion. Stores and cycles of nutrients adjust under the new land use, but in most cases the net<br />

loss of nutrients and leakage are greater than under natural conditions. Most studies indicate that across<br />

the region soil carbon typically reduces to 20–70 percent of the pre-clearing amount (e.g. Sanderman and<br />

Baldock, 2010). Opportunities for restoring some of this very large stock of carbon have been a focus of soil<br />

research in Australia and New Zealand during the last decade.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

487<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Australia<br />

In their review of replicated Australian field trials with time-series data, Sanderman and Baldock (2010)<br />

concluded that, although the implementation of more conservative land-management practices will lead to<br />

a relative gain in soil carbon, absolute soil carbon stocks may still be on a trajectory of slow decline. There are<br />

also inevitable trade-offs between agricultural production (e.g. carbon exports in the form of crops, fibre and<br />

livestock) and carbon sequestration (capture and storage) in soils.<br />

SOE (2011) provides a district-by-district assessment of trends in soil carbon for Australia. The assessment<br />

concluded the following.<br />

• The time since clearing is a key factor determining current trends. For example, large parts of<br />

Queensland are still on a declining trend because widespread clearing for agriculture was still occurring<br />

in the 1990s.<br />

• Few regions have increasing soil carbon stores.<br />

• Regions with intensifying systems of land use (e.g. northern Tasmania) have decreasing stores.<br />

• Most regions with a projected drying climate have declining trends.<br />

• The savannah landscapes of northern Australia have significant potential for increasing soil carbon<br />

stores, but this requires changes in grazing pressures and fire regimes.<br />

• Some of the extensive cropping lands in southern Australia with weathered and naturally infertile soils<br />

have not experienced as large a loss of soil carbon since clearing (e.g. generally a 30–70 percent loss and<br />

sometimes


New Zealand<br />

The importance of soil erosion to the soil carbon balance of New Zealand was noted earlier. Significant<br />

progress has also been made in estimating the carbon balance of different land uses. Trotter et al. (2004)<br />

estimated that New Zealand’s major vegetation types combined to make the total land area a small net carbon<br />

source (Table 15.3). A similar conclusion was reported by Tate et al. (2005).<br />

As indicated in Table 15.3, ‘improved’ grassland is New Zealand’s most widespread land use but there are<br />

large differences in carbon exchange rates within this land type. For example, detailed measurements by<br />

Mudge et al. (2011) over two years demonstrated that a dairy farm with mineral soil was a net C sink (year 1 =<br />

590 ± 560 kg C ha -1 yr -1 ; year 2 = 900 ± 560 kg C ha -1 yr -1 ) while Nieeven et al. (2005) and Campbell et al. (2015),<br />

using similar eddy covariance methods, demonstrated that other dairy farms with drained peat soil were net<br />

C sources (-1061 ± 500 kg C ha -1 yr -1 and 2940 C ha -1 yr -1 respectively).<br />

Vegetation type<br />

Area<br />

(million<br />

ha)<br />

Net<br />

carbon<br />

exchange<br />

(T g y-1)<br />

Source or<br />

sink<br />

Native forest 5.8 -8 Source<br />

Planted forest 1.6 +5 Sink<br />

Scrubland 3.7 -2 Source<br />

Native (tussock) grassland 4.3 +7 Sink<br />

‘Improved’ grassland (ryegrass and white clover) 6.7 -6 Source<br />

Unimproved grassland (species other than ryegrass and white clover) 3.4 +3 Sink<br />

Total for New Zealand 25.5 -1 Source<br />

Table 15.3 Estimated annual land–atmosphere (net) carbon (C) exchange rate for New Zealand’s major vegetation types.<br />

Source: Trotter et al., 2004.<br />

Schipper et al. (2014) reported the results of repeated sampling of 148 soil profiles across New Zealand over<br />

a 20-40 year period under improved pasture grazed by dairy cattle and dry stock (e.g. beef cattle and sheep).<br />

For soils on flat land, C stock of the uppermost 0.3 m depth decreased significantly over time (by 5 ± 21 tonnes<br />

C ha-1, n = 125 profiles). For silandic Andosols and Gleysols, C stock of the uppermost 0.3 m depth decreased<br />

significantly over time (by 14 ± 20 tonnes C ha -1 for silandic Andosols (mean ± standard deviation, n = 32), and<br />

by 8 ± 14 tonnes C ha -1 for Gleysols (n = 25 profiles). <strong>Soil</strong>s of these groups had the highest (initial) C stocks (178 ±<br />

31 tonnes C ha -1 for the uppermost 0.3 m depth of silandic Andosols, 101 ± 28 tonnes C ha -1 for the Gleysols and<br />

96 ± 28 tonnes C ha -1 for the other soils, n = 91 profiles). For soils in hill country, C stock of the uppermost 0.3 m<br />

depth increased significantly over time (by 14 ± 22 tonnes C ha-1, n = 23 profiles).<br />

There have been some studies of potential causal factors of temporal change in soil C stock in New Zealand,<br />

including fertility and fertiliser application, irrigation and erosion.<br />

• Fertility and fertiliser application: Phosphorus (P) fertiliser application and P and nitrogen fertility<br />

status have not been found to account for the C stock trends of lowland and hill country soils beneath<br />

grazed pasture (Dodd and Mackay, 2011; Schipper et al., 2011, 2013; Parfitt et al., 2014).<br />

• Irrigation: The carbon stocks in some irrigated soils used for grazing over many decades have decreased<br />

compared to those receiving only rainfall (Kelliher et al., 2012). This may have been caused by greater soil<br />

respiration rates in the irrigated system, although other mechanisms are possible (see Kelliher, Curtin<br />

and Condron, 2013, Schipper et al., 2013, Condron et al., 2014).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

489<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


• Erosion: As noted earlier, sheet erosion by water and landslides are important factors affecting carbon<br />

stocks in New Zealand. In one catchment, these processes each accounted for a loss of 0.5 tonnes C ha -1<br />

yr -1 (Page et al., 2004). On lower slopes, the soil may be lost or re-distributed or both. One study showed<br />

the C stock in erosion scars increased from 10 to 80 tonnes C ha -1 within 70years in the uppermost 0.2<br />

m depth of soil (Parfitt et al., 2013). However, the carbon stocks of soils forming on erosion scars are<br />

unlikely to return to more than ~80 percent of the pre-landslide amount because the newly developing<br />

soils are relatively shallow and drought-prone in summer (Rosser and Ross, 2011).<br />

Studies of current C stocks and the potential saturation value for the soils of New Zealand (Beare et al.,<br />

2014) suggest there is an opportunity to increase the C stock of pastoral soils by increasing the C input rate,<br />

including deeper plant roots (e.g. Carter and Gregorich, 2010). However, organic matter stored deeply in soils<br />

is poorly understood (Rumpel and Kögel-Knabner, 2011) and determining the contribution of roots to soil C<br />

may not be straightforward (e.g. Dodd and Mackay, 2011).<br />

Pacific<br />

Only a few studies of soil carbon dynamics have been undertaken in the countries of the Pacific (e.g.<br />

Hartemink, 1998a). General statements are nonetheless regularly made about the decline in soil carbon<br />

associated with soil erosion, excessive cultivation and poor soil management. For example, Leslie and<br />

Ratukalou (2002) conclude that the small size of farm holdings in Fiji (60 percent are less than 3 ha) forces<br />

farmers into intensive cultivation (often mono-cropping) for high output, short-term production without (or<br />

with only minimal) fallow periods. Furthermore, competition for land is forcing subsistence gardens onto<br />

steeper slopes because of the expansion of cash cropping and grazing on the flatter lands.<br />

Excessive soil erosion in many sugar cane areas along with the burning of cane trash is resulting in serious<br />

depletion of fertility and soil loss on poorly managed farms. A 30-year study from Fiji on a series of sugarcane<br />

farms showed the expected decrease (15-35 percent) in topsoil organic C at the time of land clearing. However,<br />

a redistribution of C occurred, with increases at 30-40 cm depth (below the plough layer) and a very gradual<br />

increase in C at greater depth (80 cm). As a result, the overall C content of the fields increased on well-managed<br />

farms (Morrison and Gawander in press, Morrison, Gawander and Ram, 2005).<br />

In Papua New Guinea, the expansion of agriculture and uncontrolled logging are most likely causing a<br />

reduction in soil carbon stocks but quantitative studies to assess the magnitude of these changes are needed.<br />

Even on atolls, land-use change involving replacement of native vegetation by coconuts has led to significant<br />

declines in soil carbon, which is critical there because of the key role of organic matter in moisture retention<br />

(Morrison and Seru, 1985).<br />

15.5.1 | <strong>Soil</strong> contamination<br />

The Southern Hemisphere does not have the same history of large scale industrialization as the Northern<br />

Hemisphere. However, soil contamination is a significant problem mainly in relation to impurities in phosphate<br />

fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, mining, waste disposal, former industrial sites and nuclear testing. Reviews<br />

of the history of soil contamination in the region are provided by Naidu et al. (1996) and more specifically for<br />

Australia (Tiller, 1992; Barzi et al., 1996), New Zealand (Roberts et al., 1996), Papua New Guinea (Singh, Levett<br />

and Kumar, 1996) and South Pacific Islands (Morrison, Gangaiya and Koshy, 1996). Throughout the region there<br />

are tens of thousands of contaminated sites (SOE, 2011; Ministry for the Environment, 2010) but the scale<br />

of the remediation task is not clear. Australia and New Zealand have a long and effective history of working<br />

together to coordinate the management and remediation of soil contamination but the waste management<br />

problem facing small islands in the Pacific is a serious and escalating problem.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

490<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Fertilizers<br />

Impurities in fertilizers and soil amendments such as lime and gypsum can include cadmium, fluorine, lead<br />

and mercury. Cadmium and fluorine have been of most concern in the region and the former can move from<br />

soil to the edible portions of plants. In Australia and New Zealand, the historically high concentrations of<br />

cadmium in phosphate fertilizers resulted from the use of island sources of high cadmium phosphate rock for<br />

fertilizer manufacture, primarily from Nauru and Christmas Island (McLaughlin et al., 1996; Loganathan et al.,<br />

2003). A large effort has been devoted to determining the magnitude of the problem and to implementing a<br />

range of control measures (Warne et al., 2007; MAF, 2011; Cavanagh, 2014). In recent years, levels of cadmium<br />

in fertilisers have been reduced, and farming systems have been modified to manage the problem and mitigate<br />

future risk. For example, in New Zealand a tiered system for fertilizer management has been established.<br />

However, large areas of land that received heavy applications of superphosphate over decades now have<br />

elevated levels of cadmium. A recent analysis by de Vries and McLaughlin (2013) concluded that the present<br />

cadmium inputs from fertilizer in Australia are in excess of the long-term critical loads in heavy-textured soils<br />

for dryland cereals and that all other systems are at low risk. In New Zealand, a recent survey has shown that<br />

only isolated soil samples had cadmium concentrations that exceeded the upper-tier threshold value. The<br />

evidence to date indicates that cadmium in New Zealand soils poses no immediate concern.<br />

Agricultural chemicals<br />

Many of the more harmful pesticides and herbicides have been banned or tightly controlled in Australia<br />

and New Zealand. However, some residues can persist and adversely affect the environment, notably in areas<br />

that were, or still are, used for growing potatoes, tomatoes, cotton, bananas and sugar cane. Copper, arsenic<br />

and lead are contaminants associated with orchards and market gardens. A widespread problem in both<br />

countries has been the thousands of former cattle and sheep-dip sites contaminated with organochlorines<br />

such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and other pesticides, including arsenic-based compounds.<br />

Urbanisation and the construction of dwellings on or near these sites pose a serious threat to human health.<br />

Most of these sites have been investigated and registered. There are far fewer studies on the impact of<br />

agricultural chemicals in the smaller island nations of the region.<br />

Mining<br />

The history of mining in the region was outlined above. In Australia, a significant number of current or<br />

former mining towns are affected by soil contamination, mostly associated with tailings, mine wastes and<br />

pollution from ore processing (e.g. Queenstown in Tasmania, Broken Hill, Captains Flat and Wollongong<br />

in New South Wales, Mt Isa in Queensland). At Port Pirie, dispersed heavy metals from smelting (primarily<br />

lead, zinc, cadmium and copper) can be detected over thousands of square kilometres, although seriously<br />

contaminated areas are restricted to tens of square kilometres (Cartwright, Merry and Tiller, 1976).<br />

In Papua New Guinea riverine disposal of processing residues, waste rock and overburden into rivers (e.g.<br />

Ok Tedi and Porgera) is having a large and long-term environmental impact on soils. Since 1984, the 1 000<br />

km long Fly River system has received about 66 million tonnes yr -1 of mining waste from the Ok Tedi coppergold-porphyry<br />

mine and this has caused widespread contamination and altered hydrological regimes (Bolton,<br />

2009; Campbell, 2011). Elevated levels of copper, zinc, cadmium and lead occur in the sediments that have<br />

been deposited in the alluvial systems of the Fly River but the longer-term impacts on ecosystems and human<br />

health are not clear.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

491<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Waste disposal<br />

The management of waste is now tightly regulated and managed in Australia and New Zealand. However,<br />

waste management is a major contemporary problem for the small island nations of the Pacific. Morrison and<br />

Munro (1999) provide an overview of the problem and broader issues of soil management on atoll islands (see<br />

case study below, Section 15.6).<br />

Industrial sites<br />

Even though they are less industrialised than many countries in the Northern Hemisphere, Australia and<br />

New Zealand have a legacy of contaminated former industrial sites. Most are point-scale but in some cases<br />

more widespread contamination has occurred.<br />

The legacy of nuclear testing<br />

Morrison, Gangaiya and Koshy (1996) review the legacy of nuclear testing in the Pacific and the following<br />

draws heavily on their account. Nuclear testing occurred throughout the 1940s and 1950s in the Marshall<br />

Islands resulting in serious contamination and impacts on resident populations. Sites in the Marshall Islands<br />

have been monitored for over 40 years and the detailed investigations include impacts on soils. Some areas<br />

will be contaminated forever. In undisturbed areas, most of the radioactivity (>80 percent) is in the upper 0.15<br />

m of the soil profile. The terrestrial food chain is still the most significant potential exposure pathway, but in<br />

some locations there may also be health problems from the intake of resuspended radioactive soil particles.<br />

Access to several islands is still restricted because of contamination.<br />

Nuclear testing also occurred in the 1950s and 1960s in Kiritimati (Christmas Island). Radioactivity<br />

concentrations in soil are consistent with global fall-out levels for a low rainfall equatorial area, and no site on<br />

the island presents a risk to the health of the local population or requires any restriction on land use.<br />

Nuclear testing in French Polynesia occurred from the 1960s to the 1990s and it has been a major<br />

international environmental issue. Morrison, Gangaiya and Koshy (1996) state that there is no doubt that<br />

the atmospheric testing did lead to significant contamination, but the impact of the underground tests is<br />

more difficult to assess. A small number of official investigations has been permitted on Mururoa, but these<br />

have been limited in extent and some areas have been excluded from investigations. The atoll is under French<br />

military control with imported food and restricted use of local resources so the direct impact of contaminants<br />

is limited. Morrison, Gangaiya and Koshy (1996) conclude that the impact on surrounding islands which are<br />

occupied by Polynesians living a traditional lifestyle is expected to be small, but in the absence of detailed<br />

investigations, this cannot be confirmed.<br />

Nuclear testing in Australia occurred during the 1950s and 1960s at Maralinga and Emu Field in South<br />

Australia and on the Montebello Islands near the coast of Western Australia. Rehabilitation of the contaminated<br />

Maralinga test area has taken decades with a major effort concluding in 2003 (DEST, 2003). Return of the<br />

Maralinga test area to its traditional owners was completed in November 2014.<br />

15.5.2 | <strong>Soil</strong> acidification<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification is an insidious and widespread problem in many parts of the region. If not corrected, the<br />

slow process can continue until the soil is irreparably damaged. The severity and extent of acidification are<br />

increasing in many areas due to inadequate treatment, intensification of land management, or both. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

acidification is of greatest concern in situations where: (i) agricultural practices increase soil acidity (e.g. use<br />

of high-analysis nitrogen fertilisers or large rates of product removal); (ii) the soil has a low capacity to buffer<br />

the decrease in pH (e.g. infertile, light-textured soils); or (iii) the soil already has a low pH.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

492<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


The main onsite effects of acidification include: loss or changes in soil biota involved in nitrification,<br />

accelerated leaching of plant nutrients, and induced nutrient deficiencies or toxicities. There may also be<br />

breakdown and subsequent loss of clay materials from the soil, the development of subsoil acidity, and<br />

reduced net primary productivity and carbon sequestration.<br />

The potential offsite effects on waterways include mobilisation of heavy metals, acidification, increased<br />

siltation and eutrophication. The process of acidification considered in this assessment is distinct from<br />

that associated with acid sulphate soils. Such soils occur primarily in coastal settings or with mines rich in<br />

sulphides. In these areas, soils naturally contain metal sulphides that severely acidify when oxidised.<br />

Australia<br />

Acidification is known to affect about half of Australia’s agriculturally productive soils. In 2001, the estimated<br />

annual value of lost agricultural production due to soil acidity was AUD $1 585 billion, about eight times the<br />

estimated cost of soil salinity at that time. More recent studies have confirmed the scale of the problem (e.g.<br />

Lockwood et al., 2003, SOE, 2011, DAFWA, 2013).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification is widespread in the extensive farming lands of southern Australia and the rates of<br />

lime application are well short of those needed to arrest the problem (see below). Acidification is common<br />

in intensive systems of land use (tropical horticulture, sugar cane, dairying). In some regions, acidification<br />

is limiting biomass production but the degree of restriction is difficult to estimate. Trends in the tropical<br />

savannahs are uncertain. If acidification is occurring there, it will be a difficult problem to solve (Noble, Cannon<br />

and Muller, 1997; Noble et al., 2002). Carbon losses are most likely occurring across regions in poor condition,<br />

and unabated soil acidification will be a major constraint on storing carbon in soils in the future.<br />

Ultimately, soil acidification restricts options for land management because acid-sensitive crops and<br />

pastures cannot be grown. It is relatively straightforward to reverse short-term soil acidification through the<br />

application of lime. However, it is much harder to reverse the problem if the acidification has advanced deeper<br />

into the soil profile, because incorporating lime at depth is prohibitively expensive. Prevention rather than<br />

cure is essential. While rates of lime application appear to be increasing (due to active extension programs),<br />

they still fall far short of what is needed to arrest the problem. The case study of southwest Western Australia<br />

(see below, Section 15.6) provides more details. The rates of lime application are still much lower than what is<br />

needed to avoid irreparable damage. In South Australia the average quantity of lime sold annually over the past<br />

decade (113 000 tonnes) is only 53 percent of that needed to balance the estimated annual soil acidification<br />

rate (SOE, 2011).<br />

New Zealand<br />

The acidification of legume-based pastures as a result of nitrate leaching and nutrient transfer/removal<br />

is of particular concern in New Zealand (de Klein, Monaghan and Sinclair, 1997). In many productive lowland<br />

pastures soil acidification is overcome through regular liming. However, amelioration of soil acidity by liming<br />

is not considered to be feasible in most hill country areas due to the high cost of aerial application (Bolan<br />

and Hedley, 2003; Moir and Moot, 2010). These soils are not cultivated and this enhances the risk for subsoil<br />

acidification. As a result acidification is affecting a significant portion of hill-country soils in New Zealand,<br />

which has the potential to significantly affect the capacity of many soils to sustain plant and animal production.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

493<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Papua New Guinea, Fiji and other tropical countries<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification is a problem in areas used for sugar cane in Papua New Guinea (e.g. Hartemink, 1998b) and<br />

in agricultural areas in Fiji (see Section 15.5.6). It may also be significant in tropical and subtropical areas that<br />

have been cleared but there have been few investigations.<br />

15.5.3 | Salinization and sodification<br />

Dryland salinity<br />

Dryland salinity is widespread across many parts of southern and eastern Australia. A large proportion of<br />

Australia’s agriculture is undertaken in areas with a rainfall of 450–800 mm yr -1 . In their natural condition,<br />

these landscapes had minimal deep drainage (generally less than 20 mm yr -1 ), and natural stores of salt brought<br />

in by rain and dust had accumulated in the soil in many regions. The removal of native vegetation changed the<br />

hydrological cycle, because trees and shrubs intercept significant quantities of rain (typically 10–20 percent of<br />

rainfall fails to reach the soil surface). When vegetation is removed, more water either infiltrates or runs off the<br />

surface. If the original vegetation has been replaced by more shallow-rooted species that use less water (e.g.<br />

annual crops and pastures), even more water passes through the soil. This may lead to rising groundwater<br />

levels and, in some cases, dryland salinity.<br />

Dryland salinity has been one of Australia’s most costly forms of land degradation. The comprehensive<br />

assessment by NLWRA (2001b) concluded that, assuming no changes in water imbalance, areas with dryland<br />

salinity were expected to increase from 5.7 million ha to 17 million ha by 2050. In many regions, the initial and<br />

sometimes primary impact of the change in hydrological regime is an increase in the salinity of streams and<br />

rivers (SOE, 2011). However, in low relief landscapes, large areas can be salinized and this dramatically reduces<br />

the options for land use.<br />

Between 2001 and 2009, the Millennium Drought (van Dijk et al., 2013) across southern and eastern Australia<br />

appears to have slowed the spread of dryland salinity in these regions but the outlook is still problematic.<br />

Current projections of climate change are for a drying of southern Australia which should lead to a lessening of<br />

the problem. However, the long-term outlook for more recently cleared land in the northern Murray–Darling<br />

Basin and central Queensland is unclear. Large areas are yet to reach a new hydrological equilibrium after<br />

clearing. However, close surveillance of groundwater systems is essential, particularly in regions that returned<br />

to wetter conditions in the last five years. The case study below for southwest Western Australia suggests that<br />

the expansion of dryland salinity may be experiencing a temporary lull in many districts. Dryland salinity is not<br />

a significant problem in other parts of the Southwest Pacific Region.<br />

Salinity in irrigation areas<br />

Salinity has been a major problem in the irrigation districts of Australia, particularly in the south of the<br />

Murray-Darling Basin where most irrigation is concentrated. Salinity developed in the early 1900s soon after<br />

the first schemes were completed. The scale of the problem started to be fully recognized in the 1970s and<br />

by 2000 it was viewed alongside dryland salinity as the country’s highest priority natural resource problem.<br />

Major investments in infrastructure, large-scale salt interception schemes, institutional reform, substantial<br />

improvements in water-use efficiency and the Millennium Drought all contributed to a mitigation of the<br />

problem (e.g. MDBA, 2010). SOE (2011) were equivocal in their assessment of whether salinity was still a<br />

major problem. However, the conclusions above for dryland salinity apply equally to irrigation salinity. New<br />

irrigation development is occurring in Tasmania where landscapes have stores of salts in some settings.<br />

Irrigation developments in northern Australia and the east coast are being explored at present but salinity<br />

risks in these areas tend to be less.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

494<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Saltwater intrusion<br />

Saltwater intrusion is a critical issue for the management of freshwater groundwater systems on most<br />

of the 1 000 or more inhabited atoll islands in the region. This issue is considered in the case study below.<br />

Throughout the region, increasing groundwater extraction (e.g. for irrigation), periods of below-average<br />

rainfall, urban development and sea-level rise have increased the risk of saltwater intrusion in coastal districts.<br />

In Australia, Werner (2010) and Ivkovic et al. (2012) provide an initial assessment of the problem. There is a good<br />

awareness of salt water intrusion risks in New Zealand and only a small number of actual salt water intrusion<br />

problems have occurred. Most have been into shallow unconfined aquifers and the problems have been shortlived<br />

and adequately managed by changes to groundwater abstraction (Callander, Lough and Steffens, 2011).<br />

Sodicity<br />

Australia has the largest extent of naturally sodic soils of any continent (FAO, 1988) but they are relatively<br />

rare in other parts of the region. There is a large scientific literature on the management and amelioration<br />

of sodicity in Australia and reviews are provided by Loveday and Bridge (1983), Summer and Naidu (1998) and<br />

Rengasamy (2002, 2006). Sodic soils are difficult to manage because of their poor soil–water and soil–air<br />

relations. Swelling and dispersion of sodic aggregates reduces the porosity and permeability of soils and<br />

increases soil strength even at low suction (e.g. high water content). Sodic soils have a narrow non-limiting<br />

water range (Letey, 1985) and they are typically either too wet immediately after rain or too dry within a few<br />

days for optimal plant growth. The dispersive clays cause surface crust and seal formation, poor internal<br />

drainage, and in some settings, tunnel erosion.<br />

Rengasamy (2002) estimated that more than 60 percent of the 20 million ha of cropping soils in Australia<br />

are sodic and that the actual yield of grains on these soils is often less than half of the potential yield. However,<br />

sodicity is often associated with other subsoil constraints to root growth including alkalinity, boron toxicity<br />

and salinity so remediation is neither easy nor economic in many cases.<br />

There are few studies on the dynamics of sodicity. Apart from irrigation systems where water supplies<br />

contain appreciable sodium, there is limited evidence to indicate that sodicity is increasing or decreasing<br />

in either severity or extent or both. In irrigation systems with appreciable sodium, salt loads are generally<br />

managed effectively. However, land-based disposal of effluent can be constrained by increasing sodicity and<br />

salt loads (Toze, 2006; Balks, Bond and Smith, 1998; Bond, 1998).<br />

Irrigation with waters containing appreciable quantities of potassium is a common occurrence, particularly<br />

with waste water. This monovalent cation has a similar effect to sodium, causing clay dispersion and reduced<br />

permeability. Smith, Oster and Sposito, (2014) state that the deleterious effect of potassium is estimated to<br />

be about one-third of that of sodium.<br />

15.5.4 | Loss of soil biodiversity<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> biology has been an active field of research in the region for many decades (e.g. CSIRO, 1983; Pankhurst<br />

et al., 1994; Abbott and Murphy, 2007). Much of this has had a focus on agriculture and forestry. However, there<br />

has also been a concerted effort to understand the evolution, distribution and status of biodiversity. Woodman<br />

et al. (2008) provide some preliminary assessments for Australia and outline strategies for developing a longerterm<br />

system for assessing soil biodiversity. Several significant assessments are underway in the region using<br />

molecular biological techniques. The Biome of Australia <strong>Soil</strong> Environments (BASE) is collecting samples to<br />

create a large-scale genomic database of soil biomes across Australia. Until these are completed, it is difficult<br />

to provide a definitive assessment of the loss of biodiversity in the region. However, some general inferences<br />

can be drawn.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

495<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


• Above-ground biodiversity is much better characterized than soil biodiversity and there are several<br />

megadiverse districts and countries in the region.<br />

• Areas with high above-ground biodiversity are likely to be similarly diverse below ground if their<br />

environments were relatively stable throughout the Pleistocene (e.g. the moist forests of southwest<br />

Western Australia, rainforests on the eastern escarpment of Australia, intermediate elevations in<br />

Papua New Guinea, southern districts in the South Island of New Zealand). Some ancient landscapes<br />

were submerged during this period (e.g. New Caledonia) and this most likely had an impact on soil<br />

biodiversity present today.<br />

• A range of pressures and stressors directly affect soil biota and some have already been discussed (e.g.<br />

loss of soil carbon, acidification, physical disruption through cultivation or other means, intensification<br />

of fire regimes). Large areas in the region have experienced these pressures and stressors. As a<br />

consequence, they are most likely experiencing a loss of soil biodiversity.<br />

15.5.5 | Waterlogging<br />

No comprehensive survey or monitoring of waterlogging have been undertaken at the district or national<br />

level in the region. Waterlogging is a significant constraint on agricultural production and extensive drainage<br />

schemes were installed during the twentieth century, particularly in low lying alluvial areas in New Zealand<br />

and eastern Australia. Texture-contrast soils with impermeable B-horizons are widespread in the pasture and<br />

cropping lands of southern Australia. Waterlogging is a major limiting factor of crop production in southwestern<br />

Victoria (McDonald and Gardner, 1987). Raised beds are sometimes used to minimize the impact of<br />

water logging and enhance crop production.<br />

15.5.6 | Nutrient imbalance<br />

Nutrient imbalances are widespread throughout the more intensively managed landscapes of the region.<br />

Some of these have already been outlined in relation to carbon balances and acidification (see below as well).<br />

The focus here is on systems of land use where nutrient mining, depletion or accumulation may be occurring.<br />

Nutrient mining refers to situations where there is a large removal of nutrients with minimal additions.<br />

In Australia, this has occurred in some extensive, low-input farming systems. For example, Dalal and Mayer<br />

(1986) document the decline in soil fertility over 70 years in areas used for dryland cropping in Queensland. This<br />

extensive low-input system relied on the natural fertility of its predominantly heavy clay soils (Vertisols) but it<br />

now requires fertilizer inputs to offset nutrient exports in harvested products.<br />

Nutrient decline is occurring in other parts of the region although there are few reliable surveys and<br />

monitoring systems except in New Zealand. The shortening of rotations in the shifting agricultural systems<br />

of Melanesia caused by increased population is most likely causing nutrient decline but minimal evidence is<br />

available. Nutrient decline is also likely to be occurring on marginal lands that are degrading due to processes<br />

such as acidification and erosion. The magnitude of the nutrient loss has been documented in a few districts,<br />

particularly where sediments and nutrients have a major environmental impact.<br />

Nutrient accumulation is a more recent phenomenon in the region and the case study on New Zealand<br />

(see below) explores several aspects. In most other Australian farming systems, fertilizer use has increased<br />

and most nutrient imbalances are managed because of the economic consequences of over- or under-use.<br />

In Australia, the use of nitrogen fertilizers has more than doubled in the last 25 years but application rates<br />

are still moderate compared to more intensively managed systems in China, Europe and the United States.<br />

Nutrient accumulation has occurred across southern Australia and elsewhere. In a few cases, environmental<br />

impacts are significant (e.g. the case of the Great Barrier Reef mentioned earlier and the Peel-Harvey system<br />

in Western Australia (e.g. Ruprecht, Vitale and Weaver, 2013).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

496<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Phosphorus is naturally deficient across large parts of the region. Despite this, in Australia phosphate<br />

fertiliser use is relatively inefficient (McLaughlin, Fillery and Till, 1990; Weaver and Wong, 2011). Most<br />

phosphorus is applied in the higher rainfall areas of southern Australia, and around 40 percent is applied to<br />

pastures. Nationally, approximately 20 percent of the phosphorus applied as fertiliser is extracted in food<br />

and fibre products for export, and about 5 percent is consumed domestically. The remaining 75 percent<br />

of the phosphorus applied in Australian agriculture accumulates in the soil, and some of this is lost to the<br />

environment, with detrimental impacts on waterways (Simpson et al., 2011; McLaughlin et al., 2011). The<br />

accumulation of phosphorus is greatest in soils across southern Australia (e.g. Weaver and Summers, 2013).<br />

Apart from the environmental risks caused by this accumulation, the inefficiency has an economic cost that<br />

will increase if fertiliser prices rise. In contrast, many grazing systems in northern Australia have pastures and<br />

animal production systems that are limited by deficits in phosphorus availability (McIvor, Guppy and Probert,<br />

2011).<br />

Nutrient imbalance has been a persistent issue in soils used for sugar cane in Fiji. Production began in the<br />

1880s and fertiliser use increased after the Second World War. Up to the 1980s, the use of particular fertilizers<br />

resulted in excess inputs of N and less than appropriate inputs of P and K (Morrison et al., 1985, 2005). After<br />

significant debate and review, blended fertilisers were introduced in the early 1990s and this has led to a more<br />

balanced input of N, P and K. However, topsoil Ca and Mg contents have dropped dramatically and this has<br />

been attributed to a continuous removal of Ca and Mg in harvested cane and by erosion. In most years, less<br />

than replacement quantities of these elements are being added in fertilisers. Another contributing factor has<br />

been a dramatic decrease in liming on sugarcane farms.<br />

15.5.7 | Compaction<br />

Until recently, heavy machines such as tractors, harvesters and trucks were driven over most agricultural<br />

areas in the region leading to widespread soil compaction (Tullberg, 2010). Damage was greatest when the<br />

soil was wet. Some of the compaction can be undone through cultivation, although it is common for plough<br />

pans to develop just below the depth of cultivation. The distribution of pressure under a heavy vehicle also<br />

results in a zone of compaction halfway between the wheels, usually at a depth of around 0.5 metres. This<br />

type of compaction is difficult to remove. Heavy animals can also compact wet soil, leading to a decline in<br />

pasture production. Most of the damage occurs in the upper part of the soil profile.<br />

In Australia, the extent of soil compaction due to wheel traffic and its agronomic consequences have not<br />

been investigated in detail; however, it is thought to be very widespread (Chan et al., 2006; McGarry, Sharp and<br />

Bray, 1999; Tullberg, Yule and McGarry, 2007). A number of studies have documented the extent and severity<br />

of compaction under different systems of land use including: irrigated agriculture (McGarry, 1990), cotton<br />

(Braunack and Johnston, 2014), dryland cropping (Bridge and Bell, 1994), sugar cane (Braunack, Arvidsson<br />

and Hakansson, 2006), and grazing and forestry (Rab, 2004). One study (Geeves et al., 1995) surveyed the<br />

physical and chemical properties of 78 soils under crops and grazed pastures judged to be representative for<br />

southern New South Wales and northern Victoria. The study concluded that soil-based constraints exist in<br />

surface and subsurface soil horizons and that these constraints are in some instances severe. The bulk density<br />

of B horizons ranged from 1.25 to 1.95 Mg m -3 with a mean of 1.58 Mg m -3 indicating that root growth will be<br />

restricted in many of these clay-rich horizons (Jones, 1983).<br />

Encouragingly, there has been a rapid uptake of controlled-traffic farming in Australia and New Zealand<br />

during the last 15 years. This confines compaction to the smallest possible area and has the potential to alleviate<br />

further damage. Tullberg, Yule and McGarry, (2007) provide a detailed account of these systems and their<br />

impact on soils. The improved productivity, practicality and economic viability of controlled-traffic systems<br />

have led to enthusiastic adoption by farmers in the region. In Western Australia, farm profit has been shown<br />

to increase by 50 percent through the adoption of controlled-traffic farming (Kingwell and Fuchsbichler, 2011).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

497<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


In New Zealand, deterioration of soil physical condition is common in grazed pastoral systems due to<br />

animal treading. Sparling and Schipper (2004) in their survey on the condition of soils in New Zealand reported<br />

moderate compaction on a large proportion of pasture soils and that about half the sites under dairying were<br />

below the critical threshold of 10 percent air-filled porosity. Mixed cropping soils also had low macroporosity.<br />

Drewry (2006) indicated that the physical condition of the top 10-15 cm naturally recovers when animals are<br />

partially or completely excluded from pasture and proposed the integration of a recovery cycle when managing<br />

grazing systems.<br />

15.5.8 | Sealing and capping<br />

Most towns and cities in the region were established during the 19th century and they were nearly all built<br />

on, or adjacent to, land highly suited to horticulture and cropping. The encroachment of urban and peri-urban<br />

development has seen the capping of this land. For economic reasons, it is highly unlikely that these good<br />

quality soils will ever regain their biological function. The loss of these strategically important soils is occurring<br />

throughout the region and is particularly significant in Fiji, some of the small Pacific islands, New Zealand and<br />

Australia. Population projections (Table 15.2) indicate that the problem will intensify in coming decades. The<br />

rate of sealing and capping is not being monitored at present.<br />

15.6 | Case studies<br />

15.6.1 | Case study one: Intensification of land use in New Zealand<br />

Significant changes in land use have occurred across New Zealand in recent decades. The impacts of<br />

these changes on soil resources are reasonably well understood because of a substantial commitment to<br />

fundamental and applied soil research within the country. This effort is integral to the current and future<br />

international success of New Zealand’s agriculture sector.<br />

An important development in the evolution of land use in New Zealand that contributed to intensification<br />

was the removal of all agricultural subsidies in the mid-1980s (MacLeod and Moller, 2006). New Zealand<br />

is unique because it is the only developed country to be largely exposed to international markets. As a<br />

consequence, current land management decisions are now driven directly by the response of land managers<br />

to market prices for agricultural products.<br />

The removal of subsidies triggered a decline in traditional sheep farming. Sheep numbers dropped from<br />

around 69 million in 1980 to 39 million by 2002 and 31 million in 2012. Plantation forests were established on<br />

former sheep pastures and forestry expanded from 0.85 million ha in 1980 to 1.8 million ha in 2000, with 95<br />

percent under private ownership. The strong international demand for dairy products caused an increase in<br />

the number of dairy farms. Dairy cattle increased from around 3.0 million in 1980 to 5.3 million by 2002 and<br />

6.4 million by 2012. Cattle stocking rates and productivity also increased (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries<br />

and Food, and Statistics New Zealand). Some of the pastures converted to plantation forests in the 1980s and<br />

1990s are now being converted to dairy pastures following the harvesting of mature trees, and even partly<br />

grown trees have been removed and replaced by pasture for dairy farming (Sparling et al., 2014). Horticulture<br />

has also expanded. The area of horticultural crops has increased by 40 percent in just over 10 years (HortNZ,<br />

2014).<br />

Most of the intensification of agriculture in New Zealand has occurred on the better class lands. There<br />

has also been the expansion of dairy farming onto soils that have previously been less intensively farmed,<br />

such as artificially drained Luvisols in the Southland region and irrigated stony Fluvisols and Leptosols of the<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

498<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Canterbury region. There has been a six-fold increase in N fertilizer use over the past 20 years (compared to<br />

a two to three fold increase in Australia) along with substantial increases in use of most other agricultural<br />

inputs.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>-based primary production is fundamental to the New Zealand economy and agricultural, horticultural<br />

and forest products together account for 60–65 percent of the country’s total export income. Understanding<br />

the pressures and changes occurring in the soils of New Zealand, especially under pasture systems, has been<br />

a major task for New Zealand soil scientists. The establishment of a coordinated soil monitoring capability<br />

(Sparling and Schipper, 2002) has been important.<br />

Taylor et al. (2010) provide an example of the insights gained from the monitoring program for the Waikato<br />

region which covers much of New Zealand’s central North Island. This monitoring program is linked to systems<br />

for setting regional targets for various aspects of the soil resource. About 58 percent of the region is in pastures,<br />

18 percent is in plantation forestry and


15.6.3 | Case study two: <strong>Soil</strong> management challenges in southwest Western Australia<br />

The southwest of Western Australia is dominated by ancient landscapes and widespread sandy soils that<br />

are strongly weathered. By world standards, the soils are infertile and have a range of physical and chemical<br />

constraints to plant growth. During the last one hundred years, large areas have been cleared for agriculture.<br />

The original perennial, deep-rooted vegetation has been replaced with shallower-rooted annual crops and<br />

pastures. Despite significant soil constraints, extensive cropping and pasture systems have developed,<br />

benefitting from the existence of regular winter rains. The farming systems generally operate with low inputs<br />

of fertilizer, farm chemicals and soil ameliorants. Despite this, the region generates a large proportion of<br />

Australia’s agricultural exports.<br />

The serious soil management challenges of the region are reasonably well understood and it is clear that<br />

the pressures of climate change and degradation of soil resources are combining to threaten the viability of<br />

many agricultural businesses. This case study focuses on just a few of the soil management challenges. The<br />

account is based almost exclusively on the comprehensive report card for sustainable natural resource use for<br />

agriculture (DAFWA, 2013).<br />

The climate of southwest Western Australia is changing and over recent decades mean temperatures have<br />

risen and annual rainfall has declined (Figures 15.3(a) and (b)). The pattern of rainfall is also changing with<br />

declines in autumn and winter rainfall and increases in spring and summer rainfall. Predictions indicate that<br />

these trends will continue and in the short term, year-to-year climate variability may be more important for<br />

agriculture than the longer term trends.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

500<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Figure 15.3 (a) Trends in winter rainfall in south-western Australia for the period 1900–2012. Source: Australian Bureau of<br />

Meteorology 1 .<br />

The 15-year running average is shown by the black line. (b) Annual mean temperature anomaly time series map for south-western Australia (1910–2012),<br />

using a baseline annual temperature (1961–1990) of 16.3 °C. The 15-year running average is shown by the black line.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidification<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> acidity in Western Australia is estimated to cost broad-acre agriculture AUD $498 million per year<br />

(Herbert, 2009) or about 9 percent of the average annual crop. It is one of the few soil constraints (particularly<br />

subsurface constraints) that can be treated with appropriate management.<br />

Between 2005 and 2012 a total of 161 000 samples was collected from over 93 000 sites to determine<br />

soil pH (determined in calcium chloride solution - pHCa) status and trend. Figure 15.4 shows the proportion<br />

of samples below the nominated targets for Western Australia for the surface layer (0–10 cm) of pHCa 5.5<br />

(desired target) and pHCa 5.0 (critical threshold). <strong>Soil</strong> acidity is widespread and extreme in many areas of the<br />

southwest of Western Australia, particularly in sandy soils. Surface soil pH can be increased to above target<br />

(pHCa 5.5) over significant areas with the application of 1 to 3 tonnes ha -1 of good quality lime. This will cost<br />

from AUD $50 to $150 per ha. If soil surface pH can be raised and maintained above the target this will ensure<br />

that management of subsurface acidity will be achieved over time.<br />

There is general recognition that lime use needs to increase and the trend is positive (Figure 15.5). However,<br />

current agricultural lime sales are still only 40 percent of the estimated annual amount required to reach the<br />

recommended targets over the next 10years (Gazey et al., 2013).<br />

1 http://www.bom.gov.au/<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

501<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Figure 15.4 Percentage of<br />

sites sampled (2005–12)<br />

with soil pH at 0–10<br />

cm depth below the<br />

established target of pHCa<br />

5.5 (left) and the critical<br />

pHCa 5.0 (right). Grey<br />

indicates native vegetation<br />

and reserves. Source:<br />

Gazey, Andrew and Griffin,<br />

2013.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

502<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Figure 15.5 Agricultural lime sales 2005–12 in the south-west of Western Australia based on data for 85–90 percent of the market.<br />

Other soil management challenges<br />

A range of other serious threats to soil function are prevalent in southwest Western Australia. Dryland<br />

salinity has been accelerated and enlarged by widespread clearing and land-use change. The problem affects<br />

agricultural land, water resources, natural biodiversity and the built environment with an economic cost of<br />

hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Currently, more than 1 million ha are severely salt-affected (McFarlane,<br />

George and Caccetta, 2004; Furby, Caccetta and Wallace, 2010). Dryland salinity has expanded in most of this<br />

region since 1998, especially following episodic rainfall events (George et al., 2008a; Robertson et al., 2010). In<br />

areas cleared and developed for agriculture after 1960, most water tables continue to rise, despite a decline<br />

in annual rainfall. Dryland salinity is a potential threat to 2.8–4.5 million ha of productive agricultural land<br />

(George et al., 2005). The long-term extent of salinity may take decades to centuries to develop (George et al.,<br />

2008b). The areas with the highest dryland salinity risk occur mostly in the highly productive, medium to high<br />

rainfall dryland agricultural areas. Management to contain or adapt to salinity is technically feasible using<br />

plant-based and engineering options, though recovery is economically viable in only a few areas (Simons,<br />

George and Raper, 2013).<br />

Wind erosion is a critical issue for the livestock and grain industries. Maintaining sufficient, stable soil<br />

cover throughout the year is the challenge and this is difficult in a variable and generally drying climate. Water<br />

erosion hazard during the growing season has diminished due to declining winter rains and more sustainable<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

503<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


management practices. Water erosion events are mainly caused by intense, localised summer storms, and<br />

these are likely to increase with changing climate. Maintaining sufficient soil cover to prevent water erosion is<br />

not always possible in grazing systems.<br />

Water repellence is widespread on the sandy soils of the region. The annual average opportunity cost of<br />

lost agricultural production is estimated to be AUD $251 million. Water repellence also increases the risk of<br />

wind and water erosion, off-site nutrient transport and possibly soil acidification through increased nitrate<br />

leaching. The extent and severity of water repellence appears to be increasing as cropping increases together<br />

with early sowing, minimum tillage and reduced break of season rainfall.<br />

A warming and generally drying climate associated with lower organic matter inputs could limit future<br />

sequestration of organic carbon in soils used for livestock and grains production. Farming systems that increase<br />

biomass production and minimise processes such as wind and water erosion are required to maintain and<br />

improve soil carbon levels. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction is suspected to be a major constraint for all agricultural industries<br />

in the region but investigations are needed to quantify its extent and severity. Finally, the nutrient status of<br />

soils has increased in agricultural systems. On average, pasture soils and arable soils contained 1.3 times and<br />

1.6 times respectively as much phosphorus (P) as is required for optimum production.<br />

15.6.2 | Case study three: Atoll Islands in the Pacific<br />

The fifth assessment report of the IPCC (AR 5) concluded that current and future climate-related drivers<br />

of risk for small islands during the 21 st century include sea level rise, cyclones, increasing air and sea surface<br />

temperatures, and changing rainfall patterns. This confirmed previous IPCC assessments and highlighted the<br />

vulnerability of small islands to multiple stressors, both climate and non-climate (Nurse et al., 2014). Limited<br />

water and soil resources are additional stressors that contribute to the vulnerability of small islands, and<br />

especially atoll islands, in the Southwest Pacific region.<br />

The following is drawn from Morrison’s (1990, 2011) reviews of soils on atoll islands. The atoll islands are in<br />

essence reefs of variable thickness that have built up by corals resting on a volcanic base. There is a variety of<br />

atoll forms but most commonly they occur as a slightly emerged calcareous reef surrounding a lagoon. Low<br />

atolls are usually less than 5 m above sea level. Raised atolls (raised coral platforms) can be higher (e.g. Nauru<br />

and Niue). Many atolls have deposits of ash or pumice from nearby volcanic activity<br />

The sandy textured soils on most atoll islands are highly calcareous and very permeable. They usually show<br />

minimal profile development. The soils are heavily dependent on organic matter to ensure the retention<br />

and availability of water and nutrients. Organic carbon can range from 1 to 20 percent in the surface layers<br />

depending on the vegetation and position in the landscape. There is minimal organic carbon deeper in<br />

the profile. The calcareous mineralogy and associated alkalinity cause a range of plant nutrition problems<br />

(e.g. deficiencies of K and micronutrients). The soils are prone to periods of water stress unless irrigated. In<br />

summary, the soils are infertile and poorly suited to intensive agriculture.<br />

Population growth (Table 15.2) and increasing urbanization combined with the decline of traditional<br />

agriculture has left many of the small island nations largely dependent on imported processed food. This<br />

dependency on processed food is a significant factor contributing to poor health associated with the rise of<br />

chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes. Local production of fresh food is therefore a necessity on atoll<br />

islands and Deenik and Yost (2006) provide a case study for the Marshall Islands.<br />

The fertility of soils on atoll islands can be improved through the incorporation of composts and organic<br />

mulches. This was a central feature of traditional systems. Mechanised mulching and composting systems<br />

are being developed on several islands along with various irrigation systems that aim to improve water use<br />

efficiency. However, various nutritional and soil management issues have to be resolved, particularly in<br />

relation to the suitability of different feed stocks and the unusual soil chemistry of some islands.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

504<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


The management of water is also fundamental because freshwater reserves on most atoll islands are<br />

under significant stress due to excessive groundwater extraction, contamination (e.g. from waste dumps)<br />

and saltwater intrusion. Finally, the farming systems on low atoll islands are vulnerable to salinization due to<br />

either poor quality groundwater associated with saltwater intrusion or infiltration of seawater after storm<br />

surges and flooding.<br />

At present, there is very limited soil science expertise available to help develop more productive and<br />

sustainable agricultural systems on atoll islands. White, Falkland and Fatai (2009), in reviewing the<br />

management of freshwater lenses on small Pacific islands, conclude that they are some of the most vulnerable<br />

aquifer systems in the world. This conclusion applies equally to the soil and food production systems on atoll<br />

islands.<br />

15.6.4 | Case study four: DustWatch – an integrated response to wind erosion in Australia<br />

Wind erosion has environmental impacts at the source where soils are eroded (onsite wind erosion), and<br />

much greater economic and human health impacts downwind from the source where air quality is reduced<br />

(offsite wind erosion). Wind erosion has been a major problem in Australia and it continues to be significant<br />

although incidence and severity have declined since the 1940s. The good technical understanding of wind<br />

erosion in Australia has relied heavily on the development of DustWatch – a collaborative effort to monitor<br />

wind erosion across the country. This case study summarizes the status of wind erosion in Australia and<br />

provides a brief introduction to DustWatch.<br />

Wind erosion trends for Australia<br />

Climate is by far the strongest determinant of wind erosion. Land management can either moderate or<br />

accelerate wind erosion rates. Unravelling these two influences has been difficult, but between 2001 and 2009<br />

the Millennium Drought – the worst on record (Van Dijk et al., 2013) – provided an opportunity to gauge the<br />

effectiveness of improvements in land management that had occurred in recent decades across the country.<br />

Historical accounts indicate that wind erosion was very active during the drought periods of the late 19th<br />

and early 20th centuries (e.g. Ratclife, 1938). While these anecdotal reports present dramatic images of huge<br />

dust storms engulfing rural towns, and sand drifts burying fence lines and blocking rural roads, until recently<br />

it had not been unequivocally established whether the ‘dust bowl years’ of the 1940s were due to extreme<br />

drought, poor land management or both.<br />

McTainsh et al. (2011) have analysed wind erosion activity during the 1940s and 2000s. They used archived<br />

meteorological data to calculate the dust storm index (DSI) for both periods (McTainsh, 1998, McTainsh et<br />

al., 2007). The DSI, which provides a measure of the frequency and intensity of wind erosion activity, is the<br />

accepted measure of wind erosion activity in Australia (Bastin, 2008, SOE, 2011). Overall, mean onsite wind<br />

erosion in the 1940s was almost six times higher (mean DSI = 11.4) than in the 2000s (mean DSI = 2.0), and the<br />

mean maximum DSI for the 1940s was four times that of the 2000s (SOE, 2011).<br />

There were also significant differences between districts. The decrease in wind erosion in the 2000s was<br />

much more pronounced in the east and centre of the continent. The 1940s erosion rate in central Australia<br />

was large, but the decrease in the 2000s was less than elsewhere. There has also been a large decrease in the<br />

number of dust storms reaching the coastal cities.<br />

O’Loingsigh et al. (2015) confirmed these findings by using Dust Event Days (DED) and a modified version of<br />

a published Dust Storm Index (DSI) to show that wind erosion during the World War II Drought (1937-1945) was<br />

up to 4.6 times greater than during the Millennium Drought.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

505<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Despite these trends, the Millennium Drought resulted in large dust storms and other wind erosion activity.<br />

Two extreme dust storms hit eastern Australian cities on 23 rd October 2002 and 23 rd September 2009. The ‘Red<br />

Dawn’ dust storm on the 22nd and 23 rd September 2009 was the largest to pass over the coastal city of Sydney<br />

since reliable records began in 1940 (Figure 15.6). Visibility was reduced to 400 m and the maximum hourly<br />

PM 10<br />

concentration was 15 366 μg m -3 – the highest ever recorded for Sydney and possibly for any Australian<br />

capital city. The Australian air quality standard of 50 μg m -3 per 24 h was massively exceeded in suburban<br />

Sydney (1 734 μg m-3) and 150 km to the north in the city of Newcastle (2 426 μg m-3).<br />

Red Dawn was caused by drought and extreme winds. The source of the red dust was primarily the sand<br />

plains of western New South Wales, the sand plains, riverine channels and lakes of the lower Lake Eyre Basin<br />

and the Channel Country of Queensland. The estimate of total suspended particulate sediment lost off the<br />

Australian coast for the 3 000 km long Red Dawn dust storm was 2.54 million tonnes with a plume height of<br />

2 500 m. This is the largest off-continent loss of soil ever reported using measured, as opposed to modelled,<br />

dust concentrations for Australia (Leys et al., 2011). This single event resulted in economic costs of between<br />

AUD $293–A$313 million with most being associated with household cleaning and associated activities. The<br />

dust storm also affected the state of Queensland, but costs there were not included in the study by Tozer and<br />

Leys (2013).<br />

Figure 15.6 MODIS image for 0000 23 September 2009 showing Red Dawn extending from south of Sydney to the Queensland/<br />

NSW border and the PM 10 concentrations measured using Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalances (TEOM) at the same time at<br />

ground stations.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

506<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


The DustWatch network<br />

Australia has a long tradition of participatory and collaborative approaches to natural resource<br />

management. DustWatch (Leys et al., 2008, DustWatch, 2014) fits within this broader tradition. It was<br />

established to fill some of the gaps in the measurement networks of wind erosion and to supplement land<br />

management information provided by community participants.<br />

Measuring and monitoring wind erosion is problematic because of the irregular nature of wind erosion<br />

in space and time. DustWatch aimed to build on the long record of observations collected by the Australian<br />

Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) by strategically adding a community network of observers and instruments<br />

to fill identifiable gaps in the BoM network. DustWatchers use the same basic measurement protocols as<br />

the BoM. In addition, satellite imagery is used wherever possible to help define source areas and dust<br />

paths. Remote sensing alone has not been successful due to the presence of cloud and the low resolution<br />

of geostationary satellites and the low temporal resolution of satellites with better spatial resolution.<br />

DustWatch has successfully mixed the formal reporting of wind erosion activity from the BoM with informal<br />

community networks, instrumented sites and ad hoc satellite data to provide an understanding of wind<br />

erosion in Australia. The major outcomes from DustWatch have been:<br />

• better reporting of the extent and severity of wind erosion across Australia at national to regional scales<br />

• greater dialogue between the scientists and the community<br />

• increased awareness of the impact of wind erosion on the environment<br />

• documentation of local community knowledge on why and where wind erosion is occurring<br />

DustWatch is important because it has provided new data sources when other formal data sources are<br />

inadequate. This includes valuable land management information from local landholders. The spatial and<br />

temporal data are also provided at the correct scales for testing physical models and remote sensing products.<br />

This ultimately has provided the capability for understanding how wind erosion processes are influenced by<br />

climate and land management.<br />

15.7 | Conclusions<br />

Based on the above finding, a provisional assessment is made of the status and trend of the 10 soil threats in<br />

order of importance for the region. At the same time an indication is given of the reliability of these estimates<br />

(Table 15.4).<br />

The status of soil resources in the Southwest Pacific region is mixed. The region is a globally significant<br />

exporter of agricultural products and nearly all of the 24 countries rely heavily on soils for wealth generation.<br />

The threats to soil function in some countries are serious and require immediate action to avoid large scale<br />

economic costs and environmental losses. These threats to soil function combined with other pressures<br />

caused by increasing population and climate change are especially challenging in southwest Western Australia<br />

and on the atoll islands of the Pacific. It is difficult to assess some threats because of the lack of surveys and<br />

monitoring networks. The example of soil monitoring from New Zealand demonstrates the practical value of<br />

having the capability to track and respond to soil change. The intensification of land use in New Zealand and<br />

to a lesser extent Australia provides an indication of the soil management challenges that will dominate in<br />

comingyears as countries attempt to substantially increase food production within a resource constrained<br />

world. Poor land management practices, and especially uncontrolled logging in the low-income countries in<br />

the Southwest Pacific are a significant challenge to national prosperity.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

507<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Threat to soil<br />

function<br />

<strong>Soil</strong><br />

acidification<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> erosion<br />

Organic<br />

carbon change<br />

Nutrient<br />

imbalance<br />

Compaction<br />

Summary<br />

A widespread and<br />

serious problem that has<br />

the potential to cause<br />

irreversible damage<br />

to soils particularly in<br />

southern Australia, tropical<br />

landscapes and areas<br />

where product removal and<br />

leaching are contributing<br />

factors.<br />

Improved land<br />

management practices in<br />

Australia and New Zealand<br />

have reduced erosion rates<br />

but the problem is still<br />

serious in some districts.<br />

Unsustainable rates of soil<br />

loss are associated with<br />

logging and clearing in<br />

several Pacific nations<br />

The conversion of land<br />

to agricultural uses has<br />

generally caused large<br />

losses of organic carbon<br />

in soils. Improved land<br />

management practices<br />

have stabilized the<br />

situation but there is<br />

limited evidence for<br />

increasing soil carbon<br />

even under these more<br />

conservative management<br />

systems.<br />

Rapid intensification<br />

of agriculture in New<br />

Zealand and more recently<br />

Australia is causing<br />

significant environmental<br />

impact, particularly due<br />

to the large increase in<br />

fertilizer use and ruminant<br />

animals. In other districts,<br />

nutrient mining and<br />

decline is occurring due to<br />

insufficient replacement of<br />

nutrients removed through<br />

harvest or other losspathways.<br />

Limited evidence suggests<br />

the problem is constraining<br />

plant growth across large<br />

areas, particularly in the<br />

cropping and pasture lands<br />

of Australia and smaller<br />

areas in New Zealand.<br />

Controlled traffic and other<br />

improved management<br />

practices may have halted<br />

this decline in soil physical<br />

fertility.<br />

Condition and Trend<br />

Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good<br />

Confidence<br />

In<br />

In trend<br />

condition<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

508<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


<strong>Soil</strong> sealing<br />

and capping<br />

Contamination<br />

Salinization<br />

and sodification<br />

Loss of soil<br />

biodiversity<br />

Waterlogging<br />

Loss of good quality<br />

agricultural land due<br />

to urban and industrial<br />

expansion is an emerging<br />

and potentially major<br />

problem for all countries in<br />

the region.<br />

Most sources of soil<br />

contamination are now<br />

regulated and controlled<br />

although the legacy of past<br />

practices is significant (e.g.<br />

Cd in fertilizers).<br />

Contamination caused by<br />

mining and waste disposal<br />

is a significant issue for<br />

several Pacific nations.<br />

Salinization is a widespread<br />

and expensive problem in<br />

Australia and some atoll<br />

islands. After a temporary<br />

respite due to dry years,<br />

the problem may continue<br />

to expand and the time to<br />

equilibration is likely to be<br />

in the order of decades.<br />

Rates of loss were most<br />

likely highest during the<br />

expansion of agriculture,<br />

particularly over the last<br />

100 years, and this may<br />

have slowed.<br />

However, information on<br />

baselines and trends is<br />

lacking in nearly all districts<br />

and countries.<br />

Waterlogging is a<br />

constraint to agricultural<br />

production in some wet<br />

years but evidence on<br />

the extent and severity is<br />

lacking. Large areas were<br />

drained to address the<br />

problem, particularly in<br />

New Zealand and parts of<br />

coastal Australia.<br />

Table 15.4 Summary of soil threats status, trends and uncertainties in the Southwest Pacific<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

509<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


References<br />

Abbott, L.K. & Murphy, D.V. 2007. <strong>Soil</strong> biological fertility: a key to sustainable land use in agriculture.<br />

Boston, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.<br />

Asquith, F., Kooge, M. & Morrison, R.J. 1994. Transportation of sediments via rivers to the ocean and the<br />

role of sediments as pollutants in the South Pacific. Reports and Studies No 72 Apia. South Pacific Regional<br />

Environmental Programme.<br />

Badgery, W.B., Simmons, A.T., Murphy, B.M., Rawson, A., Andersson, K.O., Lonergan, V.E. & van de<br />

Ven, R. 2013. Relationship between environmental and land-use variables on soil carbon levels at the regional<br />

scale in central New South Wales. Australia. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 51: 645-656.<br />

Baldock, J., Macdonald, L. & Sanderman, J. 2013. Foreword to <strong>Soil</strong> Carbon in Australia’s Agricultural Lands.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Research, 51.<br />

Balks, M.R., Bond, W.J. & Smith, C.J. 1998. Effects of sodium accumulation on soil physical properties<br />

under and effluent-irrigated plantation. Aust. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Res., 36: 821–830.<br />

Barzi F., Naidu R. & McLauglin M.J. 1996. Contaminants and the Australian soil environment. In: R.<br />

Naidu, R.S. Kookana, D.P. Oliver, S. Rogers & M.J. McLaughlin, eds. Contaminants and the soil environment in the<br />

Australasia-Pacific regions. pp. 451-484.Springer Netherlands.<br />

Bastin, G. 2008. ACRIS Management Committee. Rangelands 2007: taking the pulse. Canberra, National Land &<br />

Water <strong>Resources</strong> Audit.<br />

Beare, M.H., McNeil, S.J., Curtin, D., Parfitt, R.L., Jones, H.S., Dodd, M.B. & Sharp J. 2014. Estimating the<br />

organic carbon stabilisation capacity and saturation deficit of soils: a New Zealand case study. Biogeochemistry,<br />

120: 71-87.<br />

Bolan, N.S. & Hedley, M.J. 2003. Role of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles in soil acidification. In Z. Rengel,<br />

ed. Handbook of <strong>Soil</strong> Acidity, pp. 29-56. USA, New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc.<br />

Bolton, B. 2009. The Fly River, Papua New Guinea: environmental studies in an impacted tropical river system.<br />

Developments in Earth and Environmental Sciences. Vol. 9. USA, Burlington, MA, Elsevier. pp 1-620.<br />

Bond, W.J. 1998. Effluent irrigation – an environmental challenge for soil science. Aust. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Res., 36: 543–<br />

555.<br />

Bowler, J.M., Johnston, H., Olley, J.M., Prescott, J.R., Roberts, R.G., Shawcross, W. & Spooner, N.A.<br />

2003. New ages for human occupation and climatic change at Lake Mungo. Australia. Nature, 421: 837–840.<br />

Braunack, M.V. & Johnston, D.B. 2014. Changes in soil cone resistance due to cotton picker traffic during<br />

harvest on Australian cotton soils. <strong>Soil</strong> & Tillage Research, 140: 29-39.<br />

Braunack, M.V., Arvidsson, J. & Hakansson, I. 2006. Effect of harvest traffic position on soil conditions<br />

and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) response to environmental conditions in Queensland, Australia. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

& Tillage Research, 89: 103-121.<br />

Bridge, B.J. & Bell, M.J. 1994. Effect of Cropping on the Physical Fertility of Krasnozems. Australian Journal of<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Research, 32: 1253-1273.<br />

Brodie, J., Waterhouse, J., Schaffelke, B., Kroon, F., Thorburn, P., Rolfe, J., Johnson, J., Fabricius, K.,<br />

Lewis, S., Devlin, M., Warne, M. & McKenzie, L. 2013. 2013 Scientific consensus statement. Land use impacts on<br />

Great Barrier Reef water quality and ecosystem condition. State Government of Queensland.<br />

Bui, E., Hancock, G., Chappell, A. & Gregory, L. 2010. Evaluation of tolerable erosion rates and time to critical<br />

topsoil loss in Australia. Canberra, CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

510<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Bui, E.N., Hancock, G.J. & Wilkinson, S.N., 2011. ‘Tolerable’ hillslope soil erosion rates in Australia: Linking<br />

science and policy. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 144: 136-149.<br />

Callander, P., Lough, H. & Steffens, C. 2011. New Zealand Guidelines for the Monitoring and Management of Sea.<br />

Envirolink Project 420-NRLC 50. New Zealand, Christchurch.<br />

Campbell, D.I., Wall, A.A., Nieveen, J.P. & Schipper L.A. 2015. Variations in CO 2<br />

exchange for dairy farms<br />

with year-round rotational grazing on peat soils. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 202: 68–78.<br />

Campbell, I.C. 2011. Science, governance and environmental impacts of mines in developing countries:<br />

lessons from Ok Tedi in Papua New Guinea. In R.Q. Grafton & K. Hussey, eds. Water <strong>Resources</strong> Planning and<br />

Management, pp. 583-598.. Cambridge University Press.<br />

Carter, M.R. & Gregorich, E.G. 2010. Carbon and nitrogen storage by deep-rooted tall fescue (Lolium<br />

arundianaceum) in the surface and subsurface soil of a fine sandy loam in eastern Canada. Agriculture<br />

Ecosystems and Environment, 136: 125-132.<br />

Cartwright, B., Merry, R.H. & Tiller, K.G. 1976. Heavy metal contamination of soils around a lead smelter at<br />

Port Pirie, South Australia. Aust. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Res., 15: 69-81.<br />

Cavanagh, J. 2014. Status of cadmium in New Zealand soils: 2014. Lincoln, Landcare Research.<br />

Chan, K.Y., Oates, A., Swan, A.D., Hayes, R.C., Dear, B.S. & Peoples, M.B. 2006. Agronomic consequences<br />

of tractor wheel compaction on a clay soil. <strong>Soil</strong> & Tillage Research, 89: 13-21.<br />

Chen, C. & Randall, A. 2013. The economic contest between coal seam gas mining and agriculture on prime<br />

farmland: it may be closer than we thought. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 15 (available at http://epubs.scu.<br />

edu.au/jesp/vol 15/iss 3/5)<br />

Condron, L.M. & Di, H.J. 2002. Capacity of soils to sustain or extend current crop and animal production:<br />

New Zealand and South Pacific Islands Perspective. In R. Lal, ed. Agricultural Sciences. Encyclopaedia of Life<br />

Support Systems, UNESCO. UK, Oxford, EOLSS Publishers.<br />

Condron, L.M., Hopkins, D.W., Gregorich, E.G., Black, A. & Wakelin, S.A. 2014. Long-term irrigation<br />

effects on soil organic matter under temperate grazed pasture. European Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 65: 741-750.<br />

Cotching, W.E., Oliver, G., Downie, M., Corkrey, R. & Doyle, R.B. 2013. Land use and management<br />

influences on surface soil organic carbon in Tasmania. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 51: 615-630.<br />

Cowie, A.L., Lonergan, V.E., Rabbi, S.M.F., Fornasier, F., Macdonald, C., Harden, S., Kawasaki, A. &<br />

Singh, B.K. 2013. Impact of carbon farming practices on soil carbon in northern New South Wales. <strong>Soil</strong> Research,<br />

51: 707-718.<br />

CSIRO. 1983. <strong>Soil</strong>s: an Australian viewpoint. Melbourne, CSIRO & London, Academic Press.<br />

DAFWA. 2013. Report card on sustainable natural resource use in agriculture. Department of Agriculture and<br />

Food, Western Australia.<br />

Dalal, R.C. & Mayer, R.J. 1986. Long term trends in fertility of soils under continuous cultivation and cereal cropping<br />

in southern Queensland. I. Overall changes in soil properties and trends in winter cereal yields. Australian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Research, 24: 265-279.<br />

Davy, M.C., Koen, T.B. 2013. Variations in soil organic carbon for two soil types and six land uses in the<br />

Murray Catchment, New South Wales, Australia. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 51: 631-644.<br />

de Klein, C.A.M., Monaghan, R.M. & Sinclair, A.G. 1997. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification: a provisional model for New<br />

Zealand pastoral systems. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 40: 541–557.<br />

De Vries, W. & McLaughlin, M.J. 2013. Modeling the Cadmium balance in Australian agricultural systems in<br />

view of potential impacts on food and water quality. Sc. Total Environ. 461-462: 240-257.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

511<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Deenik, J.L. & Yost, R.S. 2006. Chemical properties of atoll soils in the Marshall Islands and constraints to<br />

crop production. Geoderma, 136: 66-81.<br />

Denham, T.P., Haberle, S.G., Lentfer, C., Fullagar, R., Field J., Therin, M., Porch, N. & Winsborough, B.<br />

2003. Origins of Agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea. Science, 301: 189-193.<br />

DEST. 2003. Rehabilitation of former nuclear test sites at Emu and Maralinga (Australia) 2003. Report by the<br />

Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee. Canberra, Australian Government Department of<br />

Education, Science and Training.<br />

Dodd, M.B. & Mackay, A.D. 2011. Effects of contrasting soil fertility on root mass, root growth, root<br />

decomposition and soil carbon under a New Zealand perennial ryegrass/white clover pasture. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>,<br />

349: 291-302.<br />

Drewry, J.J. 2006. Natural recovery of soil physical properties from treading damage of pastoral soils in<br />

New Zealand and Australia: a review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114: 159–169.<br />

DustWatch. 2014. Official web site. (available at www.dustwatch.edu.au)<br />

Dymond, J.R. 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion in New Zealand is a net sink of CO 2<br />

. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,<br />

35(15): 1763-1772.<br />

Eyles, G.O. 1983. The distribution and severity of present soil erosion in New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer,<br />

39: 12-28.<br />

FAO. 1988. Salt affected soils and their management. FAO <strong>Soil</strong>s Bulletin 39. Rome, FAO.<br />

Friedlaender, J.S., Friedlaender, F.R., Reed, F.A., Kidd, K.K., Kidd, J.R., Chambers, G.K., Lea R.A.,<br />

Loo, J-H., Koki, G., Hodgson, J.A., Merriwether, D.A. & Weber, J.L. ,2008. The Genetic Structure of Pacific<br />

Islanders. PLoS Genet, 4(1): e 19. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0040019<br />

Furby, S.L., Caccetta, P.A. & Wallace, J.F. 2010. Salinity monitoring in Western Australia using remotely<br />

sensed and other spatial data. J. Environ. Qual., 39: 16–25.<br />

Gazey, C., Andrew, J. & Griffin, E. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> acidity. In Report card on sustainable natural resource use in<br />

agriculture. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia.<br />

Geeves, G.W., Cresswell, H.P., Murphy, B.W., Gessler, P.E., Chartres, C.J., Little, I.P. & Bowman, G.M.<br />

1995. The physical, chemical and morphological properties of soils in the wheat-belt of southern NSW and northern<br />

Victoria. Department of Conservation and Land Management, NSW & Aust. Division of <strong>Soil</strong>s Occasional<br />

Report, CSIRO.<br />

George, R.J., Clarke, J.D.A. & English, P. 2008b. Modern and palaeogeographic trends in the salinisation<br />

of the Western Australian Wheatbelt. Australian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 46: 751-767.<br />

George, R.J., Kingwell, R., Hill-Tonkin, J. & Nulsen, R. 2005. Salinity investment framework: Agricultural land<br />

and infrastructure. Resource management technical report 270. Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.<br />

George, R.J., Speed, R.J., Simons, J.A., Smith, R.H., Ferdowsian, R., Raper, G.P. & Bennett, D.L. 2008a.<br />

Long-term groundwater trends and their impact on the future extent of dryland salinity in Western Australia in a variable<br />

climate. 2nd International Salinity Forum: Salinity, water and society - Global issues, local action. Adelaide,<br />

South Australia 31 March – 3 April.<br />

Glatthaar, D. 1988. The sediment load of the Waimanu River, Southeastern Viti Levu, Fiji. In H. Liedtke &<br />

D. Glatthaar, eds. Report about two research projects in the Republic of Fiji, pp. 52-75. Sponsored by the German<br />

Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany). Bochum,<br />

Ruhr-University Bochum, Geographical Institute.<br />

Hartemink, A.E. 1998a. <strong>Soil</strong> chemical and physical properties as indicators of sustainable land management<br />

under sugar cane in Papua New Guinea. Geoderma, 85: 283-306.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

512<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Hartemink, A.E. 1998b. Acidification and pH buffering capacity of alluvial soils under sugarcane. Experimental<br />

Agriculture, 34: 231-243.<br />

Herbert A. 2009. ‘Opportunity cost of land degradation hazard in the south-west agricultural region’,<br />

Resource Management Technical Report 349, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia.<br />

Hill, R.B., Sparling, G., Frampton, C. & Cuff, J. 2003. National <strong>Soil</strong> Quality Review and Programme Design.<br />

Technical Paper 75, Land. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington<br />

HortNZ. 2014. Industry statistics. (available athttp://www.hortnz.co.nz/Overview/About-Us/Industry-statistics.<br />

htm, accessed November 2014)<br />

Ivkovic, K.M., Marshall, S.K., Morgan, L.K., Werner, A.D., Carey, H., Cook, S., Sundaram, B., Norman,<br />

R., Wallace, L., Caruana, L., Dixon-Jain, P. & Simon, D. 2012. National-scale vulnerability assessment of seawater<br />

intrusion: summary report. Waterlines report. Canberra, National Water Commission.<br />

Jones, C.A. 1983. Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities for root growth. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America<br />

Journal, 47: 1208-1211.<br />

Kelliher, F.M., Condron, L.M., Cook, F.J. & Black, A. 2012. Sixty years of seasonal irrigation affects carbon<br />

storage in soils beneath pasture grazed by sheep. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 148: 29-36.<br />

Kelliher, F.M., Curtin, D., Condron, L.M. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon stocks in particle-size fractions under seasonally<br />

irrigated, grazed pasture. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 56: 239-244.<br />

Kingwell, R. & Fuchsbichler, A. 2011. The whole-farm benefits of controlled traffic farming: An Australian<br />

appraisal. Agricultural Systems, 104: 513-521.<br />

Leslie, D.M. & Ratukalou, I. 2002. Review of rural land use in Fiji: opportunities for the new millennium. Suva,<br />

Secretariat of the Pacific Community.<br />

Letey, J. 1985. Relationship between soil physical properties and crop production. In B.A. Stewart, ed.<br />

Advances in soil science. Vol. 5, pp. 277-294. Springer.<br />

Leys, J., McTainsh, G., Strong, C., Heidenreich, S. & Biesaga, K. 2008. DustWatch: using community<br />

networks to improve wind erosion monitoring in Australia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 33: 1912-1926.<br />

Leys, J.F., Heidenreich, S.K., Strong, C.L., McTainsh, G.H. & Quigley, S. 2011. PM 10 concentrations and<br />

mass transport during ‘Red Dawn’ – Sydney, 23 September 2009. Aeolian Research, 3: 327-342.<br />

Liedtke, H. 1989. <strong>Soil</strong> erosion and soil removal in Fiji. Applied Geography and Development, 33: 68-92.<br />

Lockwood, P., Wilson, B., Daniel, H. & Jones, M. 2003. <strong>Soil</strong> acidification and natural resource management:<br />

directions for the future. NSW, Armidale, University of New England..<br />

Löffler, E. 1977. Geomorphology of Papua New Guinea. Canberra, CSIRO & Australian National University Press.<br />

Löffler, E. 1979. Papua New Guinea. Australia, Hutchinson.<br />

Loganathan, P., Hedley, M.J., Grace, N.D., Lee, J., Cronin, S.J., Bolan, N.S. & Zanders, J.M. 2003. Fertiliser<br />

contaminants in New Zealand grazed pasture with special reference to cadmium and fluorine — a review.<br />

Australian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 41: 501-532.<br />

Loveday, J. & Bridge, B.J. 1983. Management of salt-affected soils. In <strong>Soil</strong>s an Australian viewpoint. pp. 843-<br />

856. CSIRO, Australia.<br />

MacLeod, C.J. & Moller, H. 2006. Intensification and diversification of New Zealand agriculture since 1960:<br />

an evaluation of current indicators of land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 115: 201–218.<br />

MAF. 2011. Cadmium and New Zealand agriculture and horticulture: a strategy for long term risk management.<br />

Wellington, New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

513<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Maragos, J.E., Baines, G.B.K. & Beveridge, P.J. 1973. Tropical cyclone Bebe creates a new land form in<br />

Funafuti atoll. Science, 1981: 1161-1164.<br />

McDonald, G.K. & Gardner, W.K. 1987. Effect of waterlogging on the grain yield response of wheat to<br />

sowing data in south-western Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 27: 661-670.<br />

McFarlane, D.J., George, R.J. & Caccetta, P.A. 2004. The extent and potential area of salt-affected land in<br />

Western Australia estimated using remote sensing and Digital Terrain Models. Proc. of Engineering Salinity Solutions,<br />

Perth, Western Australia. 9–12 November. Australian Capital Territory, Barton, Institution of Engineers.<br />

McGarry, D. 1990. <strong>Soil</strong> compaction and cotton growth on a Vertisol. Aust. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 28: 869 877.<br />

McGarry, D., Sharp, G. & Bray, S.G. 1999. The Current Status of <strong>Soil</strong> Degradation in Queensland Cropping <strong>Soil</strong>s.<br />

Queensland Department of Natural <strong>Resources</strong>, DNRQ 990092. 16 pp.<br />

McGlone, M.S. 1989. The Polynesian settlement of New Zealand in relation to environmental and biotic<br />

changes. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 12: 115-129.<br />

McIvor, J.G., Guppy, C. & Probert, M.E. 2011. Phosphorus requirements of tropical grazing systems: the<br />

northern Australian experience. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 349: 55-67.<br />

McLaughlin, M.J., Tiller, K.G., Naidu, R. & Stevens, D.P. 1996. Review: the behaviour and environmental<br />

impact of contaminants in fertilizers. Australian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 34: 1-54.<br />

McLaughlin, M.J., Fillery, I.R., Till, A.R. 1990. Operation of the phosphorus, sulphur and nitrogen cycles. In:<br />

R.M. Gifford, M.M. Barton, eds. Australia’s renewable resources: sustainability and global change. IGBP, Australia<br />

Planning Workshop.<br />

McLaughlin, M.J., McBeath, T.M., Smernik, R., Stacey, S.P., Ajiboye, B. & Guppy, C. 2011. The chemical<br />

nature of P accumulation in agricultural soils-implications for fertiliser management and design: an Australian<br />

perspective. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 349: 69-87.<br />

McTainsh, G. 1998. Dust storm index. In: Sustainable agriculture: assessing Australia’s recent performance. A<br />

report to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management of the National Collaborative<br />

Project on Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture. Collingwood, CSIRO Publishing.<br />

McTainsh, G., Leys, J., O’Loingsigh, T. & Strong, C. 2011. Wind erosion and land management in Australia during<br />

1940–1949 and 2000–2009. Report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability,<br />

Environment, Water, Population and Communities on behalf of the State of the Environment 2011 Committee.<br />

Canberra, DSEWPaC.<br />

McTainsh, G., Tews, E., Leys, J. & Bastin, G. 2007. Spatial and temporal trends in wind erosion of Australian<br />

rangelands during 1960 to 2005 using the dust storm index (DSI). Australian Collaborative Rangeland Information<br />

System. Canberra, Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.<br />

MDBA. 2010. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Report of the Independent Audit Group for Salinity 2009-<br />

10. Canberra, MDBA. (available at http://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/pubs/Report-of-the-Independent-<br />

Auditors-for-Salinity-2009-10.pdf)<br />

Ministry for the Environment. 2010. Proposed national environmental standard for assessing and managing<br />

contaminants in soil: discussion document. Wellington, New Zealand Ministry for the Environment.<br />

Moir, J.L. & Moot, D.J. 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> pH, exchangeable aluminium and lucerne yield responses to lime in a<br />

South Island high country soil. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association, 72: 191-196.<br />

Monaghan, R.M., Houlbrooke, D.J. & Smith, L.C. 2010. The use of low-rate sprinkler application systems<br />

for applying farm dairy effluent to land to reduce contaminant transfers. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural<br />

Research, 53: 389–402<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

514<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Moorehead, A. (ed.). 2011. Forests of the Pacific Islands: foundation for a sustainable future. Suva, Secretariat of<br />

the Pacific Community.<br />

Morrison, R.J. & Gawander, J.S. (in press). Changes in the properties of Fijian Oxisols over 30years of<br />

sugarcane cultivation. <strong>Soil</strong> Research.<br />

Morrison, R.J. & Munro, A.J. 1999. Waste management in the small island developing states of the South<br />

Pacific: an overview. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 6: 232-246.<br />

Morrison, R.J. & Seru, V.B. 1985. <strong>Soil</strong>s of Abatao Islet, Tarawa, Kiribati. INR Environmental Studies Report No.<br />

27. University of the South Pacific. 81 pp.<br />

Morrison, R.J. 1990. Pacific atoll soils: chemistry, mineralogy and classification. Atoll Research Bulletin, 339:<br />

1-25.<br />

Morrison, R.J. 2011. <strong>Soil</strong>s of low elevation coral structures. In D. Hopley, ed. Encyclopedia of Modern Coral<br />

Reefs, pp 1019-1024. New York, Springer.<br />

Morrison, R.J., Gangaiya, P. & Koshy, K. 1996. Contaminated soils in the South Pacific islands. In<br />

Contaminants and the <strong>Soil</strong> Environment in the Australasia-Pacific Region , pp. 659-675. Netherlands, Springer.<br />

Morrison, R.J., Gawander, J.S. & Ram, A.N. 2005. Changes in the properties of a Fijian Oxisol over 25 years<br />

of sugarcane cultivation. In D. M. Hogarth, ed. Proceedings International Society of Sugar Cane Technologies XXV<br />

Congress, Vol. 2, pp. 139-146. Guatemala.<br />

Morrison, R.J., Manner, H.I. 2005. The pre-mining pattern of soils on Nauru, Central Pacific. Pacific Science,<br />

59: 523-540.<br />

Morrison, R.J., Sivan, P., Krishnamurthi, M., Deo, V., Vula, E. & Jogia, D.L. 1985. Report of the Cabinet<br />

Committee investigating the fertilizer procurement and distribution practices of the Fiji Sugar Corporation. Report to<br />

the Fiji Cabinet. 58 pp.<br />

Mudge, P.L., Wallace, D.F., Rutledge, S., Campbell, D.I., Schipper, L.A. & Hosking, C.L. 2011. Carbon<br />

balance of an intensively grazed temperate pasture in two climatically contrastingyears. Agriculture Ecosystems<br />

and Environment, 144: 271-280.<br />

Naidu, R., Kookana, R.S., Oliver, D.P., Rogers, S. & McLaughlin, M.J. 1996. Contaminants and the soil<br />

environment in the Australasia-Pacific region. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic.<br />

Nieeven, J.P., Campbell, D.I., Schipper, L.A. & Blair, I.J. 2005. Carbon exchange of grazed pasture on a<br />

drained peat soil. Global Change Biology, 11: 607-618.<br />

NLWRA. 2001a. Australian agricultural assessment 2001. Volume 1. Canberra, National Land and Water<br />

<strong>Resources</strong> Audit.<br />

NLWRA. 2001b. Australian dryland salinity assessment 2000: extent, impacts, processes, monitoring and<br />

management options. Canberra, National Land and Water <strong>Resources</strong> Audit.<br />

Noble, A.D., Cannon, M. & Muller, D. 1997. Evidence of accelerated soil acidification under Stylosanthesdominated<br />

pastures. Australian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 35: 1309-1322.<br />

Noble, A.D., Middleton, C., Nelson, P.N. & Rogers, L.G. 2002. Risk mapping of soil acidification under<br />

Stylosanthes in northern Australian rangelands. Australian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 40: 257-267.<br />

Nurse, L.A., McLean, R.F., Agard, J., Briguglio, L.P., Duvat-Magnan, V., Pelesikoti, N., Tompkins, E. &<br />

Webb, A. 2014. Small islands. In V.R. Barros, C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M.<br />

Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea<br />

& L.L.White, eds. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects, pp. 1613-1654.<br />

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate<br />

Change. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press & USA, New York, NY.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

515<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


O’Connell, J.F. & Allen, J. 2004. Dating the colonization of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia–New Guinea): a<br />

review of recent research. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31: 835-853.<br />

Ollier, C.D. 1982. The Great Escarpment of eastern Australia: tectonic and geomorphic significance. Journal<br />

of the Geological Society of Australia, 29: 13–23.<br />

O’Loingsigh, T., McTainsh, G.H., Parsons, K., Strong, C.L., Shinkfield, P. & Tapper, N.J.2015. Using<br />

meteorological observer data to compare wind erosion during two great droughts in eastern Australia;<br />

the World War II Drought (1937–1946) and the Millennium Drought (2001–2010). Earth Surface Processes and<br />

Landforms, 40: 123-130.<br />

Page, K.L., Dalal, R.C., Pringle, M.J., Bell, M., Dang, Y.P., Radford, B. & Bailey, K. 2013. Organic carbon<br />

stocks in cropping soils of Queensland, Australia, as affected by tillage management, climate, and soil<br />

characteristics. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 51: 584-595.<br />

Page, M.J., Trustrum, N.A., Brackley, H. & Baisden, W.T. 2004. Erosion-related soil carbon fluxes in a<br />

pastoral steepland catchment, New Zealand. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 103: 561-579.<br />

Pankhurst, C.E., Doube, B.M., Gupta V.V.S.R. & Grace, P.R.1994. <strong>Soil</strong> biota: management in sustainable<br />

farming systems. East Melbourne, CSIRO.<br />

Parfitt, R.L., Baisden, W.T., Ross, C.W., Rosser, B.J., Schipper, L.A. & Barry, B. 2013. Influence of erosion<br />

and deposition on carbon and nitrogen accumulation in resampled steepland soils under pasture in New<br />

Zealand. Geoderma, 192: 154-159.<br />

Parfitt, R.L., Steveson, B.A., Ross, C. & Fraser, S. 2014. Change in pH, bicarbonate-extractable-P, carbon<br />

and nitrogen in soils under pasture over 7 to 27years. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 57: 216-227.<br />

Rab, M.A. 2004. Recovery of soil physical properties from compaction and soil profile disturbance caused<br />

by logging of native forest in Victorian Central Highlands, Australia. Forest Ecology and Management, 191: 329-<br />

340.<br />

Ratclife, F. 1938. Flying fox and drifting sand: the adventures of a biologist in Australia. New York, RM McBride &<br />

Co.<br />

Reisinger, A., Kitching, R.L., Chiew, F., Hughes, L., Newton, P.C.D., Schuster, S.S., Tait, A. & Whetton, P.<br />

2014. Australasia. In V.R. Barros, C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,<br />

K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea &<br />

L.L.White, eds. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects, pp. 1371-1438.<br />

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate<br />

Change. UK, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press & USA, New York, NY.<br />

Rengasamy, P. 2002. Transient salinity and subsoil constraints to dryland farming in Australian sodic soils:<br />

an overview. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 42: 351–361.<br />

Rengasamy, P. 2006. World salinization with emphasis on Australia. Journal of Experimental Biology, 57(5):<br />

1017-1023.<br />

Roberts, A.H.C., Cameron, K.C., Bolan, N.S., Ellis, H.K. & Hunt, S. 1996. Contaminants and the soil<br />

environment in New Zealand. In Contaminants and the soil environment in the Australasia-Pacific Region, pp. 579-<br />

628. The Netherlands, Springer.<br />

Roberts, R.G., Jones, R. & Smith, M.A. 1990. Thermoluminscence dating of a 50 000-year-old human<br />

occupation site in northern Australia. Nature, 345: 153–156.<br />

Roberts, R.G., Jones, R., Spooner, N.A., Head, M.J., Murray, A.S. & Smith, M.A., 1994. The human<br />

colonisation of Australia: optical dates of 53 000 and 60 000 years bracket human arrival at Deaf Adder<br />

Gorge, Northern Territory. Quaternary Science Reviews, 13: 575–583.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

516<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Robertson, M.J., George, R.J., O’Connor, M.H., Dawes, W., Oliver, Y.M. & Raper, G.P. 2010. Temporal and<br />

spatial patterns of salinity in a catchment of the central Wheatbelt of Western Australia. Australian Journal of<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Research, 48: 326–336.<br />

Rosser, B.J. & Ross, C.W. 2011. Recovery of pasture production and soil properties on soil slips scars in<br />

erodible hill siltstone country, Wairarapa, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 54: 23-44.<br />

Rumpel, C. & Kögel-Knabner, I. 2011. Deep soil organic matter – a key but poorly understood component<br />

of terrestrial C cycle. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 338: 143-158.<br />

Ruprecht, J., Vitale, S. & Weaver, D. 2013. Nutrient export (phosphorus). In Report card on sustainable natural<br />

resource use in agriculture. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia.<br />

Sanderman, J. & Baldock, J.A. 2010. Accounting for soil carbon sequestration in national inventories: a soil<br />

scientist’s perspective. Environmental Research Letters, 5.<br />

Sanderman, J., Farquharson, R. & Baldock, J. 2010. <strong>Soil</strong> carbon sequestration potential: a review for Australian<br />

agriculture. Report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Climate Change and Energy<br />

Efficiency. Canberra, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.(available at www.csiro.<br />

au/files/files/pwiv.pdf).<br />

Schipper, L.A, Parfitt, R.L., Fraser, S., Littler, R.A., Baisden, W.T. & Ross, C. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> order and<br />

grazing management effects on changes in soil C and N in New Zealand pastures. Agriculture Ecosystems and<br />

Environment, 184: 67-75.<br />

Schipper, L.A. & Sparling, G.P. 2011. Accumulation of soil organic C and change in C:N ratio after<br />

establishment of pastures in New Zealand. Biogeochemistry, 104: 49-58.<br />

Schipper, L.A., Dodd, M.B., Fisk, L.M., Power, I.L., Parenzee, J. & Arnold, G. 2011. Trends in soil carbon and<br />

nutrients of hill-country pastures receiving different phosphorus fertilizer loadings for 20years. Biogeochemistry,<br />

104: 35-48.<br />

Schipper, L.A., Dodd, M.B., Pronger, J., Mudge, P.L., Upsell, M. & Moss, R.A. 2013. Decadal changes in<br />

soil carbon and nitrogen under a range of irrigation and phosphorus fertilizer treatments. <strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of<br />

America Journal, 77: 246-256.<br />

Simons, J., George, R. & Raper, P. 2013. Dryland salinity. In Report card on sustainable natural resource use in<br />

agriculture. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia.<br />

Simpson, R.J., Oberson, A., Culvenor, R.A., Ryan, M.H., Veneklaas, E.J., Lambers, H., Lynch, J.P., Ryan,<br />

P.R., Delhaize, E., Smith, F.A., Smith, S.E., Harvey, P.R. & Richardson, A.E. 2011. Strategies and agronomic<br />

interventions to improve the phosphorus-use efficiency of farming systems. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 349: 89-120.<br />

Singh, K., Levett, M.P. & Kumar, R. 1996. Contaminants and the soil environment in Papua New Guinea: an<br />

overview. In contaminants and the soil environment in the Australasia-Pacific region. R. Naidu, ed. Dordrecht,<br />

Kluwer Academic.<br />

Smith, C.J., Oster, J.D. & Sposito, G. 2014. Potassium and magnesium in irrigation water quality<br />

assessment. Agricultural Water Management. (in press).<br />

SOE. 2011. Australia state of the environment 2011. Independent report to the Australian Government Minister<br />

for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra, State of the Environment<br />

2011 Committee, DSEWPaC..<br />

Sparling, G.P. & Schipper, L. 2004. <strong>Soil</strong> quality monitoring in New Zealand: trends and issues arising from<br />

a broad-scale survey. Agric. Ecosys. Environ., 104: 545-552.<br />

Sparling, G.P. & Schipper, L. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> quality at a national scale in New Zealand. J. Environ. Qual., 31: 1848-1857.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

517<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Sparling, G.P., Lewis, R., Schipper, L.A., Mudge, P.L. & Balks, M.R. 2014. Changes in soil organic C and<br />

N contents at three chronosequences after conversion from plantation pine forest to dairy pasture on a New<br />

Zealand Pumice soil. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 52: 38–45.<br />

Summer, M.E. & Naidu, R. 1998. Sodic soils. Oxford University Press. New York.<br />

Tate, K.R., Wilde, R.H., Giltrap, D.J., Baisden, W.T., Saggar, S., Trustrum, N.A., Scott, N.A. & Barton,<br />

J.P. 2005. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon stock and flows in New Zealand: System development, measurement and<br />

modelling. Canadian Journal of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 85: 481-489.<br />

Taylor, M. D. Kim, N. D., Hill, R. B. & Chapman, R. 2010. A review of soil quality indicators and five key<br />

issues after 12 yr soil quality monitoring in the Waikato region. <strong>Soil</strong> Use and Management, 26: 212-224.<br />

Terry, J.P., Garimella, S. & Kostaschuk, R.A. 2002. Rates of floodplain accretion in a tropical island river<br />

system impacted by cyclones and large floods. Geomorphology, 42: 171-182.<br />

Terry, J.P., Kostaschuk, R.A. & Garimella, S. 2006. Sediment deposition rate in the Falefa River basin,<br />

Upolu Island, Samoa. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 86: 45-63.<br />

Tiller, K.G. 1992. Urban soil contamination in Australia. Austr. J. <strong>Soil</strong> Res., 30: 937-957.<br />

Toze, S. 2006. Reuse of effluent water - benefits and risks. Agricultural Water Management, 80: 147-159<br />

Tozer, P. & Leys, J. 2013. Dust storms–what do they really cost? The Rangeland Journal, 35: 131-142.<br />

Trotter, C.M., Tate, K.R., Saggar, S., Scott, N.A. & Sutherland, M.A. 2004. A multi-scale analysis of<br />

national terrestrial carbon budget and the effects of land-use change. In M Shiyomi, ed. Global Environmental<br />

Change in the ocean and on land. TERRAPUB.<br />

Tullberg, J. 2010. Tillage, traffic and sustainability-A challenge for ISTRO. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research, 111: 26-32.<br />

Tullberg, J.N., Yule, D.F. & McGarry, D. 2007. Controlled traffic farming - From research to adoption in<br />

Australia. <strong>Soil</strong> and Tillage Research, 97: 272-281.<br />

Turney, C.S.M., Bird, M.I., Fifield, L.K., Roberts, R.G., Smith, M., Dortch, C.E., Grün, R., Lawson,<br />

E., Ayliffe, L.K., Miller, G.H., Dortch, J. & Cresswell, R.G. 2001. Early human occupation at Devil’s Lair,<br />

Southwestern Australia 50 000 years ago. Quaternary Research, 55: 3–13.<br />

UNDESA. 2013. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. Vol. I. Comprehensive Tables. ST/ESA/SER.A/336.<br />

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.<br />

van Dijk, A.I.J.M., Beck H.E., Crosbie, R.S., de Jeu, R.A.M., Liu, Y.Y., Podger, G.M., Timbal, B. & Viney,<br />

N.R. 2013. The Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009): Natural and human causes and<br />

implications for water resources, ecosystems, economy, and society. Water <strong>Resources</strong> Research, 49: 1040–1057.<br />

Warne, M., Rayment, G., Brent, P., Drew, N., Klim, E., McLaughlin, M., Milham, P., Shelley, B., Stevens,<br />

D. & Sparrow, L. 2007. Final report of the National Cadmium Management Committee (NCMC) (2000-2006).<br />

(available at http://www.cadmium-management.org.au/documents/NCMC-Final-Report-web.pdf)<br />

Weaver, D.M. & Summers, R.N. 2013. Nutrient status (phosphorus). In Report card on sustainable natural<br />

resource use in agriculture. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia.<br />

Weaver, D.M. & Wong, M.T.F. 2011. Scope to improve phosphorus (P) management and balance efficiency<br />

of crop and pasture soils with contrasting P status and buffering indices. Plant and <strong>Soil</strong>, 349: 37-54.<br />

Werner, A.D. 2010. A review of seawater intrusion and its management in Australia. Hydrogeol. J., 14: 1452-<br />

1469.<br />

White, I. Falkland, A. & Fatai, T. 2009. Groundwater evaluation and monitoring assessment, vulnerability<br />

of groundwater in Tongatapu, Kingdom of Tonga. SOPAC/EU EDF 8. Reducing the Vulnerability of Pacific APC<br />

States. Canberra, Australian National University. 351pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

518<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


Wilson, B.R. & Lonergan, V.E. 2013. Land-use and historical management effects on soil organic carbon in<br />

grazing systems on the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales. <strong>Soil</strong> Research, 51: 668-679.<br />

Woodman, J.D., Baker, G.H., Evans, T.A., Colloff, M.J. & Andersen, A.N. 2008. <strong>Soil</strong> biodiversity and<br />

ecology: emphasising earthworms, termites and ants as key macro-invertebrates. Final report prepared for the 2008<br />

Collaborative Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment. Canberra, National Land & Water <strong>Resources</strong> Audit. 126 pp.<br />

World Bank. 2014. GDP per capita (current US$), World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts<br />

data files. World Development Indicators. (availablea at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD,<br />

accessed 12th November 2014)<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

519<br />

in the Southwest Pacific


16 | Regional Assessment<br />

of <strong>Soil</strong> Change in Antarctica<br />

Contributing author: Megan Balks<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

520<br />

in Antarctica


16.1 | Antarctic soils and environment<br />

Antarctica has a total area of 13.9 × 106 km 2 , of which 44 890 km 2 (0.32 percent) is ice-free (Fox and Cooper,<br />

1994; British Antarctic Survey, 2005) with potential for soil development. Ice free areas are mainly confined<br />

to the Antarctic Peninsula, a few places around the perimeter of the continent and along the Transantarctic<br />

Mountains. The largest ice-free area (approximately 5 000 km 2 ) is the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea<br />

Region.<br />

Mean annual temperatures vary from near 0°C in the moister, marine influenced Antarctic Peninsula<br />

to about -20°C in dry, higher altitude inland areas (Campbell and Claridge, 1987). Many soils are formed on<br />

mixed tills with some directly formed on bedrock. Organic matter is minimal (< 0.1 percent) in drier, colder<br />

inland areas. However, in areas where free moisture occurs, mosses and, on the Antarctic Peninsula, higher<br />

plants, may grow and accumulate to form peat soil materials. Ornithogenic materials dominate soils at many<br />

coastal locations (e.g. Hofstee et al., 2006). Surface ages in coastal and Antarctic Peninsula regions tend<br />

to be predominantly Holocene, exposed by retreat of the Last Glacial Maximum ice. At higher elevations in<br />

the McMurdo Dry Valleys, surfaces as old as Mid-Miocene (14 Ma) have been reported (Sugden, Bentley and<br />

Cofaigh, 2006) indicating low erosion rates under a stable polar desert climate. <strong>Soil</strong> microclimates, driven by<br />

strong topographic variability, also influence soil properties (Balks et al., 2013).<br />

A wide variety of soils occur in the ice-free areas (Campbell and Claridge, 1987). Gelisols (<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff,<br />

2014) or Cryosols (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2014) are the predominant soils in Antarctica. Cryosols contain<br />

permafrost at depth and are overlain by an active layer that thaws during the summer and is frozen in winter.<br />

In moister coastal areas the permafrost is ice-cemented and thus ‘frozen solid’. However in some inland<br />

areas of the Trans-Antarctic Mountains, including the McMurdo Dry Valleys, there is not enough moisture to<br />

form ice-cement so soils with temperatures well below 0°C are loose and easily excavated (Bockheim, 1978;<br />

Campbell and Claridge, 1987). The soils range from Gelisols (Cryosols) in the Ross Sea Region, through Gelisols<br />

and Entisols in coastal East Antarctica, to a mixture of Gelisols, Entisols, Spodosols and Inceptisols in the<br />

warmer northern Antarctic Peninsula Region where permafrost is not ubiquitous (Balks et al., 2013). Due to<br />

limited weathering in the cold climate, many Antarctic soils are dominantly gravelly sands. Where vegetation<br />

is absent, a protective desert pavement usually forms at the soil surface. The focus for studies on Antarctic<br />

soils is not on their potential for food production, but rather on their genesis, diversity, and vulnerability to<br />

impacts of human activity.<br />

16.2 | Pressures/threats for the Antarctic soil environment<br />

Most of the human activities in Antarctica, including historic huts, modern research stations, and tourist<br />

visits, are concentrated in the relatively accessible, small, ice-free areas, on the coast, particularly in the Ross<br />

Sea region and Antarctic Peninsula (O’Neill et al,. in press).<br />

Antarctica was first recorded by three whaling ships in 1820 leading to regular whaling visits and the<br />

Ross expedition of 1839-1940. The ‘heroic era’ of exploration (1895–1917) included expeditions such as those<br />

of Borchgrevink, Scott, Shackleton, Mawson and Amundsen. Since the International Geophysical Year (1957-<br />

1958), greatly increased human activity has occurred with over 70 scientific research bases established, mainly<br />

around the Antarctic coast. Ship-based Antarctic tourism has become popular with 46 000 tourists reported<br />

in the 2007/08 summer and 27 700 in the 2013-2014 season (IAATO, 2014).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

521<br />

in Antarctica


Legacies of human occupation are scattered at isolated sites across Antarctica, particularly in areas close to<br />

the major research stations and semi-permanent field camps (Campbell, Balks and Claridge, 1993; Kennicutt<br />

et al., 2010; Tin et al., 2009). Impacts have included physical disturbance as a result of construction activities,<br />

geotechnical studies, and roading (Campbell, Balks and Claridge, 1993; Campbell, Claridge and Balks, 1994;<br />

Harris, 1998; Kennicutt et al., 2010; Kiernan and McConnell, 2001); local pollution from hydrocarbon spills<br />

(Aislabie et al., 2004; Kim, Kennicutt II and Qian, 2006; Klein et al., 2012) and from waste disposal (Claridge<br />

et al., 1995, Snape, Morris and Cole, 2001; Santos et al., 2005; Sheppard, Claridge and Campbell, 2000);<br />

introduction of alien species (Frenot et al., 2005; Chown et al., 2012; Cowan et al., 2011); and disturbance to soil<br />

biological communities (de Villiers, 2008; Harris, 1998; Naveen, 1996; Tin et al. 2009 and references therein).<br />

The amount of contaminated soil and waste has been estimated at 1–10 million m 3 (Snape, Morris and Cole,<br />

2001). The presence of persistent organochlorine pollutants in Antarctica has been attributed to long-range<br />

atmospheric transport from lower latitudes (Bargagli, 2008).<br />

Antarctic soils are easily disturbed and natural recovery rates are slow due to low temperatures and often<br />

a lack of liquid moisture (Campbell, Balks and Claridge, 1993, 1998a; Campbell et al., 1998b; Kiernan and<br />

McConnell, 2001; Waterhouse, 2001). Where physical disturbance removes the protective ‘active layer’ the<br />

underlying permafrost will melt with resulting land surface subsidence and, in drier regions, accumulation of<br />

salt at the soil surface (Campbell, Claridge and Balks, 1994; Waterhouse, 2001). Campbell and Claridge (1975,<br />

1987) recognized that older, more weathered desert pavements and associated soils were the most vulnerable<br />

to physical human disturbance. However disturbances on active surfaces, such as gravel beach deposits,<br />

aeolian sand dunes and areas where melt-water flows, have the capacity to recover (visually) relatively quickly<br />

(McLeod, 2012; O’Neill, Balks and López-Martínez, 2012b, 2013: O’Neill et al., 2012a).<br />

Fuel spills are the most common source of soil contamination and have the potential to cause the greatest<br />

environmental harm in and around the continent (Aislabie et al., 2004). Hydrocarbon fuel spills have been<br />

shown to persist in the environment for decades, with fuel perching on top of ice-cemented permafrost<br />

(Balks et al., 2002). When spilled on Antarctic soils, possible fates of the hydrocarbons include dispersion,<br />

evaporation, and biodegradation. Hydrocarbon degrading microbes are present in the Antarctic environment<br />

but within the Ross Sea region their effectiveness is limited by moisture and nutrient (N and P) availability<br />

(Aislabie et al., 2004, 2012). Hydrocarbon spills on Antarctic soils can enrich hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria<br />

within the indigenous microbial community (Aislabie et al., 2004, 2012; Delille et al. 2000).<br />

Elevated levels of metal concentrations have been reported at base sites especially in areas used for waste<br />

disposal or affected by emissions from incinerators or fuel spills (Claridge et al. 1995; Sheppard, Claridge and<br />

Campbell, 2000; Webster et al., 2003; Santos et al., 2005; Stark et al. 2008; Guerra et al., 2011). Particularly<br />

high metal levels have been reported at Hope Bay on the Antarctic Peninsula (Guerra et al., 2011) and at the<br />

Thala Valley landfill at Casey Station, East Antarctica (Stark et al., 2008). Elevated levels of methyl lead have<br />

been detected in soil from a former fuel storage site at Scott Base (Aislabie et al., 2004).<br />

Surface trampling has been shown to impact on soil nematode abundances in the McMurdo Dry Valleys<br />

(Ayres et al., 2008) and on arthropod abundance on the Antarctic Peninsula (Tejedo et al. 2005, 2009).<br />

Potential for introduction of invasive plant, insect, and microbial biota is gaining attention (Cowan et al., 2011;<br />

Chown et al., 2012; Greenslade and Convey, 2012).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

522<br />

in Antarctica


16.3 | Response<br />

All activities in Antarctica are regulated through the national administrative and legal structures of the<br />

countries active in the region, underpinned by the international legal obligations resulting from the Antarctic<br />

Treaty System. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol) was<br />

signed in 1991 and designates Antarctica as ‘a natural reserve devoted to peace and science’. The Madrid<br />

Protocol mandates the protection of Antarctic wilderness and aesthetic values and requires that before any<br />

activity is undertaken the possible environmental impacts are assessed. Since the ratification of the Madrid<br />

Protocol in 1991 environmental awareness has increased and the standard of prevention of human impacts<br />

undertaken by many of the Antarctic programmes, such as those operating in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, is<br />

now more stringent than environmental management standards in most, if not all, other regions of the planet<br />

(O’Neill et al., in press).<br />

The ice-free areas visited by humans are small, relative to the Antarctic continent as a whole, and impacts<br />

occur as isolated pockets amongst largely pristine Antarctic wilderness (O’Neill et al., in press). The most<br />

intense and long-lasting visible impacts occur around the current and former research bases, and are often<br />

remnants of activities in the 1950s-1970s prior to the Madrid Protocol (Campbell and Claridge, 1987; Webster et<br />

al., 2003; Bargagli, 2008; Kennicutt et al., 2010; O’Neill, 2013). Since the 1980s environmental accountability,<br />

management and awareness have increased, and the environmental footprints of stations such as Scott Base<br />

and McMurdo Station on Ross Island have remained static or decreased (Kennicutt et al., 2010). For example,<br />

there are mechanisms in place to prevent spills, remove wastes, phase out incineration, limit soil disturbance,<br />

and protect sites of particular cultural or environmental significance. These mechanisms are proving effective<br />

at preventing further damage to Antarctic soils.<br />

References<br />

Aislabie, J.M., Balks, M.R., Foght, J.M. & Waterhouse, E.J. 2004. Hydrocarbon spills on Antarctic soils:<br />

effects and management. Environmental Science and Technology, 38: 1265–1274.<br />

Aislabie, J.M., Ryburn, J, Gutierrez-Zamora, M-L., Rhodes, P., Hunter, D., Sarmah, A.K., Barker, G.M. &<br />

Farrell, R.L. 2012. Hexadecane mineralization activity in hydrocarbon-contaminated soils of Ross Sea region<br />

Antarctica may require nutrients and inoculation. <strong>Soil</strong> Biology & Biochemistry, 45: 49–60.<br />

Ayres, E., Nkem, J.N., Wall, D.H., Adams, B.J., Barnett, J.E., Broos, E.J, Parsons, A.N., Powers, L.E,<br />

Simmons, B.L. & Virginia, R.A. 2008. Effects on human trampling on populations of soil fauna in the McMurdo<br />

Dry Valleys, Antarctica. Conservation Biology, 22: 1544–1551.<br />

Balks, M.R., López-Martínez, J., Goryachkin, S.V., Mergelov, N.S., Schaefer, C.E.G.R., Simas, F.N.B.,<br />

Almond, P.C., Claridge, G.G.C., Mcleod, M. & Scarrow, J. 2013. Windows on Antarctic soil-landscape<br />

relationships: comparison across selected regions of Antarctica. Geological Society, London, Special Publications,<br />

381: 397-410. doi: 10.1144/SP 381.9<br />

Balks, M.R., Paetzold, R.F., Kimble, J.M., Aislabie, J. & Campbell, I.B. 2002: Effects of hydrocarbon spills<br />

on the temperature and moisture regimes of Cryosols in the Ross Sea region, Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 14:<br />

319–326.<br />

Bargagli, R. 2008. Environmental contamination in Antarctic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment,<br />

400: 212–226. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.062<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

523<br />

in Antarctica


Bockheim, J.G. 1978. Relative age and origin of soils of the eastern Wright Valley, Antarctica. <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 128:<br />

142–152.<br />

British Antarctic Survey. 2005. Antarctic Factsheet Geographical Statistics. UK, Cambridge, British Antarctic<br />

Survey. 4 pp. (avaialable at http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/ teacher_resources/ resources/factsheets/<br />

factsheet_geostats_screen.pdf)<br />

Campbell, I.B. & Claridge, G.G.C. 1975. Morphology and age relationships of Antarctic soils. R. Soc. N. Z.<br />

Bull., 13: 83–88.<br />

Campbell, I.B. & Claridge, G.G.C. 1987. Antarctica: soils, weathering processes and environment. USA, New<br />

York, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 368 pp.<br />

Campbell, I.B., Balks, M.R. & Claridge, G.G.C. 1993. A simple visual technique for estimating the impact of<br />

fieldwork on the terrestrial environment in ice-free areas of Antarctica. Polar Record, 29: 321–328.<br />

Campbell, I.B., Claridge, G.G.C. & Balks, M.R. 1994. The effects of human activities on moisture content<br />

of soils and underlying permafrost from the McMurdo Sound region, Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 6: 307–314.<br />

Campbell, I.B., Claridge, G.G.C. & Balks, M.R. 1998a. Short- and long-term impacts of human disturbances<br />

on snow-free surfaces in Antarctica. Polar Record, 34(188): 15–24.<br />

Campbell, I.B., Claridge, G.G.C., Campbell, D.I. & Balks, M.R. 1998b. <strong>Soil</strong> temperature and moisture<br />

properties of Cryosols of the Antarctic Cold Desert. Eurasian <strong>Soil</strong> Science, 31: 600–604.<br />

Chown, S.L., Huiskes, A.H.L., Gremmen, N.J.M., Lee, J.E., Terauds, A., Crosbie, K., Frenot, Y., Hughes,<br />

K.A., Imura, S., Kiefer, K., Lebouvier, M., Raymond, B., Tsujimoto, M., Ware, C., Van de Vijver, B. &<br />

Bergstrom, D.M. 2012. Continent-wide risk assessment for the establishment of nonindigenous species in<br />

Antarctica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(13): 4938–4943.<br />

Claridge, G.G.C., Campbell, I.B., Powell, H.K.J., Amin, Z.H. & Balks, M.R. 1995. Heavy metal contamination<br />

in some soils of the McMurdo Sound region, Antarctica. Antarct. Sci., 7: 9–14.<br />

Cowan, D.A., Chown, S.L., Convey, P., Tuffin, M., Hughes, K., Pointing, S. & Vincent, W.F. 2011. Nonindigenous<br />

microorganisms in the Antarctic: assessing the risks. Trends in Microbiology, 19: 540–548.<br />

De Villiers, M. 2008. Review of recent research into the effects of human disturbance on wildlife in the<br />

Antarctic and sub-Antarctic region. In Human disturbance to wildlife in the broader Antarctic region: a review of<br />

findings. Working Paper 12 for XXXI Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Kiev, Ukraine, 2–13 June 2008.<br />

Delille, D. 2000. Response of Antarctic soil bacterial assemblages to contamination by diesel fuel and<br />

crude oil. Microbial Ecology, 40: 159–168.<br />

Fox, A.J. & Cooper, P.R. 1994. Measured properties of the Antarctic Ice Sheet derived from the SCAR digital<br />

database. Polar Record, 30: 201-206.<br />

Frenot, Y., Chown, S.L., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P.M., Convey, P., Skotnicki, M. & Bergstrom D.M. 2005.<br />

Biological invasions in the Antarctic: Extent, impacts and implications. Biological Reviews, 80: 45–72.<br />

Greenslade, P. & Convey, P. 2012. Exotic Collembola on subantarctic islands: Pathways, origins and Biology.<br />

Biological Invasions, 14: 405–417.<br />

Guerra, M.B.B., Schaefer, C.E.G.R., de Freitas Rosa, P., Simas, F.N.B., Pereira, T.T.C. & Pereira-Filho,<br />

E.R. 2011. Heavy metal contamination in century-old manmade technosols of Hope Bay, Antarctic Peninsula.<br />

Water, Air and <strong>Soil</strong> Pollution, 222: 91–102.<br />

Harris, C.M. 1998. Science and environmental management in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica. In J.<br />

Priscu,. ed. Ecosystem Processes in a Polar Desert: the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica. Antarctic Research Series<br />

72. Washington, DC, American Geophysical Union.<br />

Hofstee, E.H., Balks, M.R., Petchey, F. & Campbell, D.I. 2006. <strong>Soil</strong>s of Seabee Hook, Cape Hallett, Northern<br />

Victoria Land, Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 18: 473–486.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

524<br />

in Antarctica


IAATO. 2014. Tourism statistics. International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators. (available at http://<br />

iaato.org/tourism-statistics)<br />

IUSS Working Group WRB. 2014. World Reference Base for soil resources 2014. International soil classification<br />

sstem for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Reports No. 106. Rome. FAO.<br />

Kennicutt, M.C., Klein, A., Montagna, P., Sweet, S., Wade, T., Palmer, T. & Denoux, G. 2010. Temporal<br />

and spatial patterns of anthropogenic disturbance at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Environmental Research<br />

Letters, 5: 1–10.<br />

Kiernan, K. & McConnell, A. 2001. Land surface rehabilitation research in Antarctica. Proceedings of the<br />

Linnean Society of New South Wales, 123: 101–118.<br />

Kim, M., Kennicutt II, M.C. & Qian, Y. 2006. Molecular and stable carbon isotopic characterization of PAH<br />

contaminants at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52: 1585–1590.<br />

Klein, A.G., Sweet, S.T., Wade, T.L., Sericano, J.L. & Kennicutt II, M.C. 2012. Spatial patterns of total<br />

petroleum hydrocarbons in the terrestrial environment at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 24:<br />

450–466.<br />

McLeod, M. 2012. <strong>Soil</strong> and Permafrost Distribution, <strong>Soil</strong> Characterisation and <strong>Soil</strong> Vulnerability to Human Foot<br />

Trampling, Wright Valley, Antarctica. New Zealand, University of Waikato. 219 pp. (Ph.D. Thesis)<br />

Naveen, R. 1996. Human activity and disturbance: building an Antarctic site inventory. In R. Ross, E.<br />

Hofman, & L. Quetin, eds. Foundations for ecosystem research in the Western Antarctic Peninsula region, pp. 389-<br />

400. Washington, DC, American Geophysical Union.<br />

O’Neill, T.A. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> physical impacts and recovery rates following human-induced disturbances in the Ross Sea<br />

region of Antarctica. New Zealand, University of Waikato. 369 pp. (Ph.D. Thesis)<br />

O’Neill, T.A., Aislabie, J. & Balks, M.R. (in press). Human impacts on Antarctic <strong>Soil</strong>s. In J.G. Bockheim, ed.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s of Antarctica. Dordrecht, Springer Publishers.<br />

O’Neill, T.A., Balks, M.R, López-Martínez, J. & McWhirter, J. 2012a. A method for assessing the physical<br />

recovery of Antarctic desert pavements following human-induced disturbances: a case study in the Ross Sea<br />

region of Antarctica. Journal of Environmental Management, 112: 415–428.<br />

O’Neill, T.A., Balks, M.R. & López-Martínez, J. 2012b. The effectiveness of Environmental Impact<br />

Assessments on visitor activity in the Ross Sea Region of Antarctica. In L. Lundmark, R. Lemelin, & D. Müller,<br />

eds. Issues in Polar Tourism: Communities, Environments, Politics. Berlin-Heildelberg-New York, Springer.<br />

O’Neill, T.A., Balks, M.R. & López-Martínez, J. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> Surface Recovery from Vehicle and Foot Traffic in<br />

the Ross Sea region of Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 25: 514–530.<br />

Santos, I.R., Silva, E.V., Schaefer, C.E., Albuquerque, M.R. & Campos, L.S. 2005. Heavy metal<br />

contamination in coastal sediments and soils near the Brazilian Antarctic Station, King George Island. Marine<br />

Pollution Bulletin, 50: 185–194.<br />

Sheppard, D.S., Claridge, G.G.C. & Campbell, I.B. 2000. Metal contamination of soils at Scott Base,<br />

Antarctica. Applied Geochemistry, 15: 513–530.<br />

Snape, I., Morris, C.E. & Cole, C.M. 2001. The use of permeable reactive barriers to control contaminant<br />

dispersal during site remediation in Antarctica. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 32: 157-174.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to <strong>Soil</strong> Taxonomy, 12th ed. Washington, DC, USDA-Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation<br />

Service.<br />

Stark, S.C., Snape, I., Graham, N.J., Brennan, J.C. & Gore, D.B. 2008. Assessment of metal contamination<br />

using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry and the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) during<br />

remediation of a waste disposal site in Antarctica. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 10: 60–70.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

525<br />

in Antarctica


Sugden, D.E., Bentley, M.J. & Cofaigh, C.O. 2006. Geological and geomorphological insights into Antarctic<br />

ice sheet evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 364: 1607–1625. doi:10.1098/rsta.2006.1791<br />

Tejedo, P., Justel, A., Benayas, J., Rico, E., Convey, P. & Quesada, A. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> trampling in an Antarctic<br />

Specially Protected Area: tools to assess levels of human impact. Antarctic Science, 21: 229–236.<br />

Tejedo, P., Justel, A., Rico, E., Benayas, J. & Quesada, A. 2005. Measuring impacts on soils by human<br />

activity in an Antarctic Specially Protected Area. Terra Antarctica, 12: 57–62.<br />

Tin, T., Fleming, L., Hughes, K.A., Ainsley, D.G., Convey, P., Moreno, C.A., Pfeiffer, S., Scott, J. & Snape,<br />

I. 2009. Review: Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment. Antarctic Science, 21: 3–33.<br />

Waterhouse, E.J. (ed). 2001. Ross Sea Region 2001: a State of the Environment Report for the Ross Sea Region of<br />

Antarctica. New Zealand, Christchurch, New Zealand Antarctic Institute.<br />

Webster, J., Webster, K., Nelson, P. & Waterhouse, E. 2003. The behaviour of residual contaminants at a<br />

former station site, Antarctica. Environmental Pollution, 123: 163–179.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Regional Assessment of <strong>Soil</strong> Changes<br />

526<br />

in Antarctica


Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups,<br />

characteristics,<br />

distribution and<br />

ecosystem services<br />

Coordinating Lead Authors: Maria Gerasimova and Thomas Reinsch<br />

Peer Reviewer: Neil McKenzie<br />

Contributing authors: L. Anjos, O. Batkhishig, J. Bockheim, R. Brinkman, G. Broll, P. Charzyński , M.R.<br />

Coulho, F.O. Nachtergaele, M. Nanzyo, S. Mantel, S.M. Pazos (†), M.H. Stolt, C. Tarnocai , T. Tóth, L.P. Wilding<br />

and G. Zhang.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

527<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


1 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with organic layers<br />

HISTOSOLS 1<br />

In most Histosols organic materials are deposited in a wetland environment to form peat. The waterlogged<br />

conditions, oxygen deficiency and, very often in the north, low temperatures, and acidic conditions, inhibit<br />

decomposition and lead to accumulation of organic matter (Kolka et al., 2012). In some Histosols the organic<br />

material is derived from upland forest vegetation under cool, wet high rainfall conditions.<br />

The soil profile features of Histosols reflect the origin of the organic material and the degree of decomposition,<br />

while the occurrence of permafrost is a common feature in these soils in arctic landscapes (FAO, 2014; Figure<br />

A 1). The soil materials in Histosols are generally dark brown to almost black reflecting the high organic matter<br />

content. These soils support forest, sedge and shrubby-moss types of vegetation and occupy a poorly-drained,<br />

level topography. However, some Histosols in the coastal areas are found on slopes or form a continuous cover<br />

on the terrain, such as blanket bogs. Most of these soils developed during the Holocene Epoch. The age of the<br />

basal peat (the peat layer just above the mineral contact) is usually five to nine thousand years old.<br />

Histosols are common soils in the Boreal and Arctic landscapes of the Northern hemisphere, although they<br />

may also occur in temperate and some tropical regions. Globally, peat lands (organic soils developed on peat)<br />

cover approximately 4 million km 2 (World Energy Council, 2013). However, most of the Histosols (3.5 million<br />

km 2 ) are found in the Northern Circumpolar Permafrost Zone where 76 percent of these soils are perennially<br />

frozen (Tarnocai et al., 2009). Nearly 80 percent of all Histosols occur in Russia, Canada and the United States.<br />

The global significance of Histosols is that they store huge amounts of organic carbon. It has been estimated<br />

that they represent a carbon pool of 500 billion tonnes of organic carbon (Strack, 2008). In addition, the<br />

present rate of annual carbon sequestration is approximately 100 million tonnes (Strack, 2008), which<br />

exceeds the present carbon loss from these soils due to agriculture, peat extraction and other human-made<br />

disturbances. Due to climate change, however, the water-saturated Histosols could be a source of greenhouse<br />

gases, mainly in the forms of methane (Couwenberg et al., 2010), but they also could be the source of carbon<br />

dioxide if these soils dry out and are affected by wildfires.<br />

1 The Reference <strong>Soil</strong> Group names of the World Reference Base developed by the IUSS Working Group RB (FAO, 2014) are used. Where the approximate equivalent<br />

name in the USDA <strong>Soil</strong> Taxonomy (<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff, 2014) is different, the USDA name is cited in brackets.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

528<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by C. Tarnocai<br />

b<br />

Photo by S. Khokhlov<br />

Figure A 1 (a) A Histosol profile and (b) a peatbog in East-European tundra.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

529<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


2 | <strong>Soil</strong>s showing a strong human influence<br />

ANTHROSOLS (Plagganthrepts, Haplanthrepts, some Orthents)<br />

Anthrosols (Figure A 2) are soils formed, altered or influenced by intense human agricultural activities. They<br />

are associated with long-term agricultural management in many parts of the world, especially where ancient<br />

civilizations were present. Technosols (see below) are also human-influenced but are connected with more<br />

recent human activities in industrial and urban environments resulting in the presence of artificial and manmade<br />

objects in the soil.<br />

The formation of Anthrosols is termed anthropedogenesis. This formation includes various processes induced<br />

by human activities in ancient agricultural systems, such as periodic irrigation and drainage, continuous buildup<br />

by applying transported manure or other soil materials, and long-term fertilization. These soils are often<br />

enriched with phosphorus and carbon, and are characterized by movement and accumulation of clay and<br />

clay-organic complexes, reduction and oxidation of iron-manganese oxides and even physical compaction,<br />

processes that occur at an accelerated rate compared with that of natural soil changes. This results in a special<br />

soil morphology and soil horizon development, such as the formation of a surface horizon with a high organic<br />

matter content, the development of compacted plough-pans and the formation of redoximorphic features, all<br />

of which represent the outcome of anthropedogenesis.<br />

Anthrosols occur widely across the globe. They appear, for example, in ancient agricultural regions under<br />

paddy cultivation, or in semi-arid and arid regions where irrigation and sedimentation have occurred.<br />

Anthrosols may also show a long-term build-up of elements from long-term manure application and<br />

phosphorus enrichment. Globally, the total extent of Anthrosols is estimated at more than 200 million ha, of<br />

which 80 percent are cultivated paddy fields.<br />

Anthrosols make up the most fertile agricultural land in the world and provide food as an essential<br />

ecosystem provisioning service. They often are an inherent part of unique agricultural systems and as such<br />

have a cultural function as well.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

530<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 2 (a) An Anthrosol (Plaggen)<br />

profile and (b) associated landscape in<br />

the Netherlands.<br />

a<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

b<br />

Photo by S. Mantel<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

531<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


TECHNOSOLS (Non soils)<br />

Technosols (Figure A 3) are common soils on all continents. They are dominant in urban areas, where there<br />

are only remnants of natural soils and where soils radically transformed by different human activities dominate<br />

together with ‘new soils’. The development of particular horizons and layers in such soils is not reflected in<br />

natural conditions of the system (Charzyński et al., 2013). Technogenic activities lead to the construction of<br />

artificial soil, soil sealing or extraction due to mining of materials not affected by surface processes in natural<br />

landscapes. The largest areas of Technosols in comparison to country total area can be found in countries with<br />

an extremely high percentage of urbanization such as Belgium and the United Kingdom. The largest areas<br />

dominated by Technosols are located within the largest mega-cities, for example the Yangtze River Delta<br />

Megalopolis in China (population of about 90 million); the Taiheiyō Belt in Japan, also known as Tokaido<br />

corridor (population of nearly 80 million); and the Great Lakes region in the United States (60 million).<br />

Technosols are soils of urban, industrial, traffic, mining and military areas.<br />

There are four main varieties of Technosols:<br />

• soils sealed by technic hard material (hard material created by humans in industrial processes) e.g.<br />

asphalt or concrete.<br />

• soils containing a large amount (more than 20 percent in the upper 1 m of soil) of artefacts. Artefacts<br />

are objects in the soil formed or strongly transformed by human activity or excavated from beneath the<br />

earth. Examples of artefacts are mine spoils, dredgings, rubbles, organic garbage, cinders, industrial<br />

dust, synthetic solids and liquids (e.g. petrol, kerosene)<br />

• soils with geomembranes or synthetic membranes made, for example, of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) laid<br />

on the surface or into the soil.<br />

• constructed or naturally developed shallow soils on buildings, without any contact to other soil<br />

material.<br />

The soil profile features of Technosols are usually weak. Beneath technogenic deposits occasionally a<br />

natural soil profile can be observed. Also original profile development may still be present in contaminated<br />

natural soils.<br />

In the urban ecosystem, soils play an essential role with their functions and ecosystem services. However,<br />

the ability of Technosols to provide ecosystem services differs from the services secured by natural soils<br />

and is often impaired (Morel et al., 2015; Stroganova et al., 1998). Technosols are more likely to contain toxic<br />

substances than other types of soils and should be treated with care (FAO, 2014). The benefits of Technosols<br />

and other urban soils are nonetheless numerous. They provide groundwater recharge for water supply,<br />

plant products for food supply, a medium for alternative storm-water management, sites for recreational<br />

activities, and buffering of temperature and humidity. They serve as a medium of retention, decomposition<br />

and immobilization of contaminants, and for dust entrapment to reduce dust content in the air. Technosols<br />

can be also considered as historical archives (Lehmann and Stahr, 2007).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

532<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by P. Charzyński<br />

Figure A 3 (a)<br />

A Technosol<br />

profile and (b)<br />

artefacts found in<br />

Technosol.<br />

b<br />

Photo by P. Charzyński<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

533<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


3 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with limitations to root growth<br />

CRYOSOLS (GELISOLS)<br />

Due to the presence of perennially frozen conditions, Cryosols have unique processes and properties<br />

different from other soil groups. Cryogenic processes, which dominate the development of these soils, are<br />

driven by the mobility of unfrozen soil water as it migrates along the thermal gradient from warm to cold. This<br />

unfrozen water then moves into the frozen soil system, and feeds the ice bodies. The increase of ice volume<br />

and the volume increase from water to ice lead to differential frost heave. This then results in cryoturbation<br />

and the formation of cryogenic macro and micro soil structures (Figure A 4).<br />

Cryosols are the major soils in the permafrost areas of the Northern Circumpolar Arctic and Subarctic as<br />

well as a large part of the Boreal Region. They also occur in the ice-free areas of Antarctica and in the subalpine<br />

and alpine areas of the mountainous regions. They cover approximately 10.2 million km 2 in the Northern<br />

Circumpolar Region (Tarnocai et al., 2009) and approximately 46 thousand km 2 in the Antarctic Region<br />

(Tarnocai and Campbell, 2002). Globally, most Cryosols occur in Russia and Canada. Cryosols support forest<br />

vegetation in the Boreal and Subarctic regions and tundra vegetation in the Arctic and Alpine Regions. Most<br />

Cryosols in Antarctica are unvegetated.<br />

Cryosols, especially those affected by cryoturbation, contain large amounts of organic carbon. Cryoturbation<br />

moves organic materials from the surface into the subsoil where it is preserved for thousands of years because<br />

of the cold soil temperatures. Cryosols in the Northern Circumpolar Permafrost Zone contain approximately<br />

351.5 Gt of carbon in the 0-100 cm depth and 818 Gt in the 0-300 cm depth (Tarnocai et al., 2009). Due to<br />

climate change and the resulting thawing of these high carbon content Cryosols, they could be the source of<br />

greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane), which would then further increase climate warming.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

534<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by A. Filaretova<br />

b<br />

Photo by A. Sadov<br />

Figure A 4 (a) A Cryosol profile and (b) associated landscape in West Siberia, Yamal Peninsula.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

535<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


LEPTOSOLS (lithic sub-groups of the Entisol order)<br />

Leptosols include soils that are very shallow (less than 25 cm) with continuous rock occurring at or near<br />

the surface, and soils that are very gravelly (with less than 20 percent soil particles). Bare rock at the surface<br />

is included in the concept of Leptosols (FAO, 2014; Figure A 5). These are generally young soils with little or no<br />

soil profile development. When Leptosols form in calcareous materials, dissolution and removal of carbonates<br />

may occur and biological activity may be high.<br />

Leptosols may occur everywhere where rocks are near the surface. They are particularly prevalent in strongly<br />

eroding areas in mountainous land at high and medium altitude with a strongly dissected topography. Minor<br />

occurrences are also along rivers where gravelly deposits have accumulated without substantial admixture of<br />

fine earth material. Leptosols are the most extensive soils in the world with an estimated extent of more than<br />

1 600 million ha. They are associated with mountain ranges, with the Sahara and the Arabian Desert.<br />

In spite of their considerable extent, Leptosols have largely been ignored in soil studies mainly because<br />

of their very limited interest for agriculture and the general lack of profile development. This may not be<br />

fully justified as more than 12 percent of the world’s population lives in a mountainous environment where<br />

Leptosols are common (Nachtergaele, 2010).<br />

Leptosols have a potential for seasonal grazing and as forest land. Erosion is the greatest threat in montane<br />

Leptosol areas of the temperate zone where population pressure (for example from tourism), over-exploitation<br />

and environmental pollution lead to the increasing deterioration of the natural vegetation and to soil erosion.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

536<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 5 (a) A Leptosol profile in the<br />

Northern Ural Mountains and (b)<br />

associated landscape.<br />

a<br />

Photo by Ye. Zhangurov<br />

b<br />

Photo by Ye. Zhangurov<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

537<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


VERTISOLS<br />

Vertisols (Figure A 6) are expansive clayey soils that shrink and swell extensively with changes in moisture<br />

content. Cracking, gilgai microrelief, and high clay content are common attributes of Vertisols, but these<br />

properties are not exclusive to them. Slickensides are the common morphogenetic link to Vertisols and Vertic<br />

intergrades (Ahmad, 1983; Coulombe et al., 1996a and 2000; <strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff, 1999). The soil mechanics model<br />

of shear failure, slickenside formation, and oblique thrusting appear to better fit observed morphological<br />

properties, systematic soil property depth functions, and leaching vector transfers than the traditional<br />

inversion pedoturbation model (Ahmad, 1983; Coulombe et al., 1996a; Wilding and Tessier, 1988). Shrink-swell<br />

in Vertisols is due mainly to inter- and intra-particle pore volume changes that occur under field conditions at<br />

high matric potentials (-1/3 to -10 bars). This is in contrast to the commonly held interlayer clay dehydration/<br />

rehydration mechanism invoked for shrink/swell dynamics (Wilding and Tessier, 1988). While smectite is a<br />

clay mineral component commonly found in Vertisols, many other clays including kaolinite, halloysite, mica<br />

and mixed layer assemblages of vermiculite, smectite and chlorite may occur as dominant or co-dominant<br />

associates (Coulombe et al., 1996b). Mineralogy controls shrink-swell phenomena by the presence of finegrained<br />

particles which have high external surface areas, high flexibility and a packing geometry that favours<br />

micropores a few micrometres in diameter or less (Wilding and Tessier, 1988; Coulombe et al., 1996b).<br />

Vertisols commonly occur in regions of grasslands and savannas, but may also be found under mixed pine<br />

and deciduous forests. Parent materials may originate from sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic origins<br />

but must provide, either from inheritance or weathering, a high content of clay with high surface area. <strong>Soil</strong><br />

moisture conditions vary widely from aridic to aquic with the caveat that soil moisture stress, desiccation<br />

and cracking must occur at some time in most years. Topography controls gilgai patterns with normal gilgai<br />

commonly occurring on slopes < 4 percent, while linear gilgai occur on steeper landforms. Most Vertisols occur<br />

on Pleistocene-age or younger geomorphic surfaces that are several thousand to hundreds of thousands of<br />

years old (Coulombe et al., 1996a and 2000).<br />

Vertisols occur in over 100 countries and represent about 316 million km 2 or 2.4 percent of the global icefree<br />

land area (Dudal and Eswaran, 1988; Ahmad, 1983; Coulombe et al., 1996a; Wilding, 2000; Coulombe et al.,<br />

2000). Over 75 percent of Vertisols are found in India, Australia, Sudan, United States, Chad and China. Fortyseven<br />

percent are in tropical regions, 52 percent in temperate zones, and 1 percent in cold boreal climates<br />

(Wilding, 2000; Coulombe et al., 2000).<br />

While Vertisols are very productive land resources in many parts of the world, especially in the developed<br />

world, they are among the most difficult resources to manage (Coulombe et al., 1996a; McGarity et al., 1984;<br />

Ahmad and Mermut, 1996). They require well above average managerial skills for success because of their<br />

high energy requirements, limited range of soil-water workability, high physical instability, susceptibility<br />

to seasonal flooding, fertility constraints, and susceptibility to wind and water erosion. They are best<br />

managed with shallow and infrequent tillage. Irrigation scheduling should be frequent with low application<br />

rates. Despite their resilience, Vertisols are subject to structural degradation, loss of macroporosity, loss<br />

of biological diversity and formation of tillage pans when used under continuous, long-term mechanical<br />

cultivation practices. Rejuvenation of native structural conditions can only be partially achieved after decades<br />

of fallow (Coulombe et al., 1996a; McGarity et al., 1984; Puentes and Wilding, 1990). Construction activities<br />

are constrained by the propensity of Vertisols for soil failure and high shrink/swell activity (Coulombe et al.,<br />

2000; McGarity et al., 1984; Ahmad and Mermut, 1996). High bioremediation and physical/chemical sorption<br />

capacities promote favourable habitats for land treatment of waste products because Vertisols when wet are<br />

slowly permeable, biochemically reduced, and have long mean residence times for intestinal fluids.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

538<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by L. Wilding<br />

b<br />

Photo by L. Wilding<br />

c<br />

Photo by L. Wilding<br />

d<br />

Photo by L. Wilding<br />

Figure A 6 Vertisol gilgai patterns and associated soils: (a) linear gilgai pattern located on a moderately sloping hillside in western<br />

South Dakota. Distance between repeating gilgai cycle is about 4 m. (b) Normal gilgai pattern occurring on a nearly level clayey<br />

terrace near College Station, TX. After a rainfall event microlows have been partially filled with runoff water from microhighs -<br />

repeating gilgai cycle about 4 m in linear length. (c) Trench exposure of soils excavated across normal gilgai pattern - repeating<br />

gilgai cycle about 4 m in linear length. Dark-colored deep soil in microlow (leached A and Bss horizons) with light-colored shallow<br />

calcareous soils associated with diaper in microhigh (Bssk and Ck horizons). The diaper has been thrust along oblique slickenside<br />

planes towards soils surface. Vertical depth of soil trench in about 2 m. (d) Close up of dark-colored soil associated with microlow and<br />

light colored diaper associated with microhigh of the trench in (c).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

539<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


SOLONETZ (Natric great groups of several different orders)<br />

Solonetz (figure A 7<br />

) are formed by salt accumulation and the leaching of the surface horizon. The dominant<br />

soil processes involved in Solonetz formation are leaching of the surface horizon combined with argilluviation<br />

and sodification manifested in the formation of columnar/prismatic structural elements.<br />

Solonetz generally occur in flat plains that have a source of soluble salts, such as salt-bearing parent<br />

material or a shallow saline water table in semi-arid, temperate and subtropical climates that receive less<br />

than 500 mm of rainfall per year. The vegetation is commonly dominated by short grasses. The formation of<br />

these soils takes generally more than 5 000 years.<br />

The extreme physical characteristics (high water retention, low hydraulic conductivity, strong swellingshrinking,<br />

great plasticity) of Solonetz are linked with the high concentration of sodium in the exchange<br />

complex of the soil. Solonetz show strong profile differentiation in terms of colour, texture, structure, sodicity,<br />

salinity, alkalinity and calcareousness. Because of the high sodicity, Solonetz have a very short time window<br />

between snow melt and the following dry period for optimal ploughing. Plastic wet or dry Solonetz surface<br />

horizons cause a number of problems for cultivation. Only Solonetz with a thick surface horizon can be<br />

cropped successfully. Other Solonetz may be used for livestock farming. After reclamation, when the adsorbed<br />

sodium is replaced by calcium (by applying gypsum) and drainage, these soils can be turned into cropland.<br />

The extent of Solonetz is estimated at about 135 million ha. They are mainly located in North America,<br />

Eurasia and Australia.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

540<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 7 (a) A Solonetz profile and (b)<br />

the associated landscape in Hungary.<br />

a<br />

Photo by T. Toth<br />

b<br />

Photo by T. Toth<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

541<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


SOLONCHAKS (Salids)<br />

Solonchaks (Figure A 8) are characterized by their high salt concentration, expressed by the electrical<br />

conductivity of the saturation extract (ECe) that exceeds 15 dS m -1 (or > 8 dS m -1 when the pH is ≥ 8.5). The<br />

presence of salt crystals and hydromorphic features are indicators of Solonchaks. The dominant soil processes<br />

involved in Solonchak formation are salt accumulation and the development of hydromorphic features.<br />

These soils generally occur in inland river basins and very flat or depressed areas which have a source of<br />

soluble salts, such as salt-bearing parent material or a shallow saline water table. They also occur in coastal<br />

lowlands. Generally they are formed in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid climates where rainfall is less than 500<br />

mm yr -1 and the evaporation exceeds the rainfall. The vegetation consists of salt tolerant grassland, bushes or<br />

mangroves.<br />

Globally the extent of Solonchaks has been estimated at 260 million ha; they occur mainly in the drier parts<br />

of North America, northern Africa, the Middle East and central Asia, South America and Australia.<br />

Solochaks are typically used for livestock farming or highly adapted irrigation farming. The vegetation on<br />

Solonchaks provides ecological services such as coast protection, grazing land and a source of wood. After<br />

leaching the salts and with drainage, these soils can be turned into cropland.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

542<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by T. Toth<br />

b<br />

Photo by S. Khokhlov<br />

Figure A 8 (a) A Solonchak profile and (b) a salt crust with halophytes.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

543<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


4 | <strong>Soil</strong>s distinguished by Fe/Al chemistry<br />

PODZOLS (SPODOSOLS)<br />

The majority of Podzols (total area 4.8 million km 2 ) occur in humid boreal and temperate climates on lighttextured<br />

rocks or quartz sands, on outwash plains and river terraces under pine forests, and on siliceous hard<br />

rocks in the mountains (Figure A 9). Smaller areas occur under equatorial evergreen forests.<br />

Podzol is a Russian folk name introduced by Dokuchaev (1879) into scientific language. It means either<br />

‘similar to ash’ or ‘under ash’, implying that the ash is white or dark, respectively. Hence Podzols initially were<br />

mostly identified by their whitish (albic) subsurface layer resulting from the loss of iron-organic compounds.<br />

The thickness of the albic material (and of the whole Podzol solum) depends on climate and ranges from 2<br />

m in equatorial ‘giant Podzols’ (Sombroek, 1966; Figure A 10) to 5 -10 cm in ‘dwarf Podzols’ on the Baltic Shield.<br />

Equatorial Podzols are confined to areas with annual rainfall from 1 800 to 3 000 mm without a marked dry<br />

season, to the weathering products of granites or gneisses, claystone and sandstone in the Amazon basin, and<br />

to marine sediments on the coastline of Brazil (Sombroek, 1966: Lucas et al., 2012). A particular combination<br />

of environmental factors favours the development of acid hydrolysis and downward migration of its products<br />

immobilized at a varying depth to form a spodic horizon. The mechanism of podzolization has been discussed<br />

by many researchers. The most recent ideas summarized by Sauer et al. (2007).<br />

The properties of spodic horizons and both the regional and local distribution of Podzols are in good<br />

agreement with moisture regimes: the spodic horizon is dominated by iron oxide compounds in drier<br />

conditions and by dark organic matter in humid ones. This differentiation is distinct at regional and local<br />

levels. Giant Podzols have a high organic carbon content in the spodic horizon, indicating that unusually large<br />

quantities of dissolved organic carbon were transferred from the topsoil. This is attributed to high volumes<br />

of water percolating through the soil, the chemical quality of the organic matter, and the long time for soil<br />

evolution (Lucas et al., 2012). The subsoils of Podzols under a continental climate or strong drainage are<br />

commonly dominated by iron, while in other more temperate areas or less drained areas they are dominated<br />

by organic carbon (Friedland et al., 1988).<br />

Podzols may be young soils, just a few centuries old, or they may have been formed over millennia (Sauer et<br />

al., 2007). Podzols buried almost 8 000 years ago were described under Histosols 2-3 m thick in West Siberia<br />

(Karavaeva, 1982).<br />

Podzols are unstable soils even without human intervention: tree windfalls or fires induce wind erosion.<br />

Their most efficient ecological services are supporting coniferous forests, often of high quality, regulating the<br />

water balance in landscapes, and retaining some pollutants. In northern Europe, Podzols on heathlands are<br />

poorly preserved if they have been part of a Plaggen ecosystem (Blume and Leinweber, 2004).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

544<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 9 (a) A Podzol profile and (b) an<br />

associated landscape, West-Siberian<br />

Plain.<br />

a<br />

Photo by D. Kostiuk<br />

b<br />

Photo by A. Konstantinov<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

545<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 10 (a) A giant Podzol profile and<br />

(b) an associated landscape, Brazil.<br />

a<br />

Photo by M.R. Coelho<br />

b<br />

Photo by M.R. Coelho<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

546<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


FERRALSOLS (OXISOLS)<br />

Ferralsols (Figure A 11) form where the weathering conditions are very intense, usually under tropical and<br />

subtropical humid conditions, with intense leaching of silica and alkaline and alkaline-earth cations, resulting<br />

in the relative accumulation of kaolinite and various amounts of resistant minerals such as (hydr-)oxides of Fe,<br />

Al, Mn and Ti. The distribution of clay in the soil profiles is uniform, without marked clay increase with depth.<br />

Ferralsols have low-activity clays throughout the lower horizons, and the base saturation is frequently low.<br />

Ferralsols have a distinct granular microstructure, due to the strong interaction among kaolinite and (hydr-)<br />

oxides of Fe and Al.<br />

These soils show no large variation of clay content or evidence of clay illuviation, and the horizons are<br />

marked only by a higher content of organic carbon in the topsoil, which reduces with depth. The subsurface<br />

horizons show gradual to diffuse boundaries. The chemical characteristics reflect the leaching of base cations<br />

and advanced weathering resulting in low-activity clays. Some Ferralsols formed from basic rocks such as<br />

basalt may have better nutrient reserves, although the high iron content will result in strong phosphorus<br />

‘fixation’. The structure is usually of granular type, although some Ferralsols may develop a weak subangular<br />

block structure. They vary in the colour of their subsurface horizon from red to yellow, mainly according to the<br />

iron content in the parent material and to hydrological conditions.<br />

Ferralsols are reported on weathering products of acid and basic rocks, and unconsolidated sediments on<br />

old and stable surfaces. They are most common on interior plateaus or slowly undulating topography in humid<br />

tropical, humid subtropical and monsoon climates. Because many climatic changes occurred since these soils<br />

were formed or the parent materials deposited, they may lack a relationship with the present vegetation,<br />

which may vary from Amazon forest to dry savannah.<br />

The most extensive occurrences of Ferralsols are in South America, mainly in Brazil. They cover about 17<br />

percent of Latin America and the Caribbean (Gardi et al., 2014). Ferralsols are also distributed in eastern and<br />

central Africa (10 percent of the continent, Jones et al., 2013) and Madagascar, in some areas of Australia and<br />

in the United States (Hawaii).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

547<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by M.G. Pereira<br />

b<br />

Photo by F.H. Gomez<br />

Figure A 11 (a) A Ferralsol profile and (b) an associated landscape, Brazil.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

548<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


NITISOLS (Alfisols, Ultisols, Inceptisols and Oxisols Great groups)<br />

Nitisols are well drained clayey soils with deep profiles. They are characterized by the strong development of<br />

structure, frequently with shiny aggregate faces (Figure A 12). They originate from basic and intermediate rocks<br />

or sediments derived under relatively intense weathering conditions in tropical and subtropical climates. This<br />

leads to the predominance of low activity clays (kaolinite) and (hydr-) oxides of Fe, Al and titanium (Ti). Some<br />

Nitisols have high base saturation and high potential for crop production. Others have very high amounts of<br />

iron and strong P fixation, or a very low sum of exchangeable bases and high aluminium. Both these latter<br />

classes are limiting to crops.<br />

The texture is clay loam or finer, with no large variation of clay content within the soil. The profile development<br />

shows intense weathering, with the prevalence of kaolinite and high iron in the nitic horizon, resulting in the<br />

strong stability of the aggregates, and the common angular and/or subangular blocks combined in a prismatic<br />

structure. The nitic horizon may show clay coatings indicating an illuviation process. The Nitisols are usually<br />

red or reddish-brown, and there is no distinct colour variation in the profile, except for the topsoil, due to the<br />

higher content of organic carbon. The subsurface horizons show gradual to diffuse boundaries. Nitisol classes<br />

vary largely according to base saturation, clay activity (usually low), iron and aluminium content. However,<br />

Nitisols formed from basalt may have high base saturation and, due to their good drainage and structure, may<br />

have high potential for both intense and low input agriculture.<br />

Nitisols are mainly formed from weathering products of intermediate and basic igneous rocks (basalt<br />

and diabase). They may also have originated from clayey sediments in karstic areas (TerraRossa). They occur<br />

predominantly on high level plateaus and slightly undulating reliefs, originally under tropical and subtropical<br />

forest, or Cerrado (Brazil) and savannah vegetation.<br />

Nitisols occur in eastern Africa and Madagascar (2 percent of the continent, Jones et al., 2013). Although<br />

accounting for less than 1 percent of area on the Latin America and Caribbean soil map, Nitisols are prized<br />

lands in Southeastern and South regions of Brazil, and in neighbouring Argentina and Uruguay. They are<br />

cultivated with crops such as coffee, citrus, soybean, corn and sugarcane; and they play an important role<br />

in the agriculture of many tropical countries. Nitisols are also found in Australia (Ferrosol in Australian soil<br />

classification, formed from basalt), Europe (the Mediterranean) and the United States.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

549<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by L. Anjos<br />

b<br />

Photo by L. Anjos<br />

Figure A 12 (a) A Nitisol profile and (b) the associated landscape with termite mounds, Brazil.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

550<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


PLINTHOSOLS (Plinthic sub-groups)<br />

Plinthosols (Figure A 13) are defined by the presence of plinthic, petroplinthic or pisoplinthic horizons,<br />

at a certain depth in the soil profile. Their formation is related to accumulation and redistribution of Fe<br />

under conditions of alternating wetting and drying cycles over long time periods. The landscape position<br />

- low lands with high groundwater or slopes with water seepage conditions - leads to chemical reduction<br />

of iron compounds in the parent material, which are redistributed and accumulated in the soil profile. The<br />

plinthite may be hard and irreversible (petroplinthite), forming a continuous and highly impermeable layer<br />

of ferruginous material (carapace or crust). The reduction, segregation and precipitation of iron (hydr-)oxides<br />

in the subsurface horizon forming the plinthite bodies, together with the dominance of kaolinite and other<br />

products of strong weathering such as gibbsite, indicate the conditions in which most Plinthosols formed.<br />

The profile may develop strongly bleached eluvial horizons and have evidence of clay illuviation; or show<br />

morphology associated to Ferralsols or to lesser development in recent sediments where reducing conditions<br />

are still present as indicated by gleyic properties. The subsurface horizon has platy, polygonal or reticulate<br />

patterns of distinct coloured (red, brown) plinthite bodies that are coherent enough to be separated from<br />

the surrounding soil matrix, which is usually of a pale colour. Hardening of the plinthite will form discrete<br />

concretions or nodules that characterize the pisoplinthic horizon. Further cementation and interconnecting<br />

of the pisoplinthic material will form the petroplinthic horizon, a layer of indurated material which may be<br />

continuous, broken or fractured.<br />

Plinthosols are reported as formed from weathering products that have a high amount of Fe or where this<br />

element is accumulated due to water seepage or ascension of groundwater. They are most common on level<br />

to gently sloping topography, in areas with seasonal fluctuating groundwater in wet climates, humid and<br />

tropical, such as in the Brazilian Amazon Basin. However, in the Brazilian Cerrado and the savannahs of Africa,<br />

Plinthosols (with petroplinthic or pisoplinthic horizons) are also found on steeper slopes or as hard layers on<br />

plateau tops of old erosional surfaces.<br />

Extensive areas of Plinthosols occur in West Africa, where they represent 5 percent of the total 30 million<br />

km 2 area of the continent (Jones et al., 2013). Widespread in the Amazon Basin, they cover about 1 percent of<br />

Latin America’s 22 million km 2 , largely in Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana and Bolivia, and in the Caribbean<br />

region, (Gardi et al., 2014). Plinthosols are also found in Southeast Asia, India, Australia and the United States.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

551<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 13 (a) A Plinthosol profile, (b)<br />

details of the plinthic horizon and (c) the<br />

associated landscape, South Africa.<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information.<br />

a<br />

b<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information.<br />

c<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

552<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


PLANOSOLS (Albaqualfs, Albaquults and Argialbolls)<br />

Planosols are seasonally water-saturated or flooded, poor acid soils with bleached, generally silty surface<br />

horizons with an abrupt transition to a dense subsoil with significantly more clay (Figure A 14). There may be<br />

pore infillings of bleached material in the subsoil. Clay destruction and aluminium interlayering driven by<br />

periodic iron hydroxide reduction and reoxidation (ferrolysis) has been recognised as a process sometimes<br />

involved in the formation of the silty surface horizons (Brinkman, 1979; Van Ranst et al., 2011).<br />

Planosols occur in generally level areas in climates with contrasting wet and dry seasons, mainly in the<br />

subtropics but in temperate areas and the tropics as well. Their total extent is estimated at 1.3 million km 2 .<br />

They are extensive in Latin America (southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina) and Australia, and they also<br />

occur in Africa (Sahelian zone, East and southern Africa), the eastern United States, Siberia, China, and<br />

Southeast Asia (Bangladesh, Thailand).<br />

Natural vegetation on Planosols is sparse grass with or without shrubs or small trees; extreme Planosols<br />

may be barren. They are generally used for grazing or for grain or root crops in temperate areas. In the<br />

subtropics and tropics, rainfed paddy (wetland) rice is grown on bunded fields; with irrigation, they can be<br />

double cropped with a second paddy rice or dryland crop. Yields are very low without fertilizers and remain<br />

sub-optimal even with fertilizers because of the poor physical and chemical soil conditions.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

553<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by National Institute of Agriculture Technology (INTA), Argentina<br />

b<br />

Photo by National Institute of Agriculture Technology (INTA), Argentina<br />

Figure A 14 (a) A Planosol profile and (b) the associated landscape, Argentina.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

554<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


GLEYSOLS (Aquic suborder and Endoaquic great groups)<br />

Gleysols are easily identified by bluish or greenish grey colours in their mineral horizons that are usually<br />

water-saturated, with only a weak or no structure (Figure A 15). These horizons are formed under reducing<br />

conditions characterized by a low redox potential. In some Gleysols the smell of hydrogen sulphide or methane<br />

is noticeable. Iron compounds are easily mobilized in Gleysols, especially in the presence of organic matter and<br />

anaerobic microorganisms. These are partially removed or oxidized and may accumulate as iron segregations,<br />

nodules, iron pans, bog ores, etc. (Zaidelman, 1994). Above the layer with gleyic characteristics, a topsoil<br />

horizon relatively rich in organic matter occurs, that may show rusty root channels. The range in pH values in<br />

Gleysols is broad and may vary between 2.5 and 9. In coastal positions Gleysols may show sulphides oxidation<br />

resulting in high acidity (Zech et al., 2014).<br />

Globally the extent of Gleysols is estimated at 7.2 million km 2 , of which approximately two thirds occur in<br />

boreal areas on unconsolidated parent rocks. In humid regions they often occupy depressions, river valleys and<br />

deltas, lake kettles and foot slopes. Subaqueous soils of shallow water bodies are also included with Gleysols.<br />

Large areas of Gleysols occur in tundra areas, in deltas of great rivers and in lowlands. They occur as associated<br />

soils almost everywhere, except in arid lands and on steep slopes.<br />

In tundra regions the melting of the permafrost layer in summer causes excess of water in an environment<br />

already enriched in organic matter and induces seasonally reducing conditions and the formation of Gleysols.<br />

Water logging is the main prerequisite for the development of gleyic features and is due to high ground water<br />

table in depressions; additional water inflow there may contribute to gleying as well as flooding in the valleys<br />

and tides in coastal areas. There is no special plant community on Gleysols because they occur all over the<br />

world, but everywhere hygrophytes are dominant plants.<br />

The main limitation for Gleysols management is surface water logging and/or shallow ground water<br />

hindering the growth of the roots of crops and trees. With artificial drainage the ground water table is lowered<br />

and the excessive moisture removed. When drainage is implemented efficiently, as it is in the Netherlands and<br />

Germany, Gleysols are productive soils for vegetables, beets and flowers. The main ecosystem threat is related<br />

to the Gleysols’ low position in the landscape, where they may accumulate pollutants and could turn into<br />

‘chemical time bombs’ (Stigliani, 1988).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

555<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by S. Khokhlov<br />

b<br />

Photo by S. Khokhlov<br />

Figure A 15 (a) A Gleysol profile and (b) associated landscape in the East European tundra.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

556<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


STAGNOSOLS<br />

(Aquic Suborders and Epiaquic Great Groups in Alfisols, Ultisols, Inceptisols, Entisols, and Mollisols)<br />

Stagnosols (Figure A 16) have much in common with Gleysols, but are different in their source of waterlogging<br />

and in their manifestations in the soil profile. Periodical stagnation of atmospheric water accounts for the<br />

name of this soil (originating from the German Pseudogley and Stagnogley). Stagnosols are characterized by<br />

the difference in texture between topsoil and subsoil originated due either to illuviation or to initial parent<br />

material heterogeneity in areas with humid climate and flat topography. Stagnosols are identified by the<br />

colour pattern of the upper 0.5 m of their mineral horizon, where a combination of reductimorphic (bluish<br />

grey colours that do not last) and oximorphic colours (rusty, reddish brown mottles inside aggregates and<br />

root channels known as Rohrenstein) together with iron-manganic segregations or nodules occur. These<br />

pedofeatures may occur within the whole layer, or they may be confined to its lower part, whereas its upper<br />

part may be composed of albic material with reductimorphic features. A special case of stagnic properties is<br />

the ‘marbled’ colour pattern described in old German literature as ‘Marmorierung’ (Muckenhausen, 1963).<br />

Stagnosols are mostly acid to weakly acid and have a low to medium base saturation. Humus accumulation<br />

is prominent in these soils with raw or moder humus types; the biological activity in these soils is weak and<br />

the physical properties are unfavourable for plant growth: low porosity, reduced water filtration and risks<br />

of drying out (Zech et al., 2014). Stagnosols are often localized and do not occur in vast continuous areas.<br />

They are mostly associated with other soils - Cambisols, Retisols, Acrisols. They are confined to flat or weakly<br />

undulating plains with various unconsolidated parent materials, moderately or heavy-textured. When the<br />

textural difference between the top- and subsoil is large, they are replaced by Planosols.<br />

Stagnosols have mostly been described in areas with humid temperate and subtropical climate<br />

under hardwood forests. They are most common in Western Europe and the Midwest of the<br />

United States. The total area of Stagnosols worldwide is estimated at 1.5 -2 million km 2 (FAO, 2014).<br />

Stagnosols have a low fertility due to their poor physical properties and moisture regime along with the<br />

elevated acidity and aluminium toxicity. Applying artificial drainage is less efficient than in Gleysols, unless<br />

additionally deep loosening of the subsoil is applied to break the impermeable layer. The same weakly<br />

permeable and dense subsoil is a problem for silviculture as it is an obstacle for tree roots and results in a<br />

high probability of tree uprooting. Nevertheless, forests of wetness-tolerant tree species and meadows are a<br />

preferable land use option.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

557<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 16 (a) A Stagnosol profile, (b)<br />

stagnic color patterns, (c) marble-like<br />

horizontal surface and (d) an associated<br />

landscape.<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

a<br />

b<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

d<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

c<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

558<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


ANDOSOLS (ANDISOLS)<br />

Andosols (Figure A 17) form typically from volcanic tephra on uplands. Distinctive properties of matured<br />

Andosols are the high content of active Al and Fe materials, and the lowest bulk density among mineral<br />

soils. Volcanic glass, the major constituent of tephra, rapidly weathers to form allphane, imogolite, Alhumus<br />

complex (non-crystalline active Al materials) and ferrihydrite (poorly crystalline active Fe material),<br />

with leaching loss of a large amount of Si, Na, Ca, etc. Under plentiful vegetation a large amount of humus<br />

accumulates in the A horizon, forming the Al-humus complex. Halloysite tends to increase under semi-dry<br />

climate in addition to non-crystalline active Al materials. Translocation of clays, Al and Fe is minimal in the soil<br />

profile. Due to a porous, fluffy and highly aggregated microstructure, Andosols show low solid phase ratio,<br />

low bulk density, high water permeability, and high water holding capacity.<br />

A humid climate and uplands are favourable for leaching loss of Si, Na, Ca, etc. and for formation of active<br />

Al and Fe materials. Tephra deposits in swamps tend to weather more slowly than those on uplands, and the<br />

weathering product is richer in halloysite. Weathering of tephra under arid soil moisture regime appears even<br />

slower. The rock type of tephra ranges from rhyolitic to basaltic. The colour of rhyolitic to Andisitic tephra is<br />

whitish to greyish and that of basaltic tephra, black.<br />

Andosols cover less than 1 percent of the earth’s land surface. The major occurrences of Andosols are in<br />

and around the volcanic areas along the circum-Pacific volcanic zone, the Alpine-Himalayan belt, and the<br />

great Rift Valleys of Africa. Others are on the Hawaiian Islands, Iceland, etc. Andosols are used as productive<br />

farmlands after appropriate improvement of chemical shortcomings.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

559<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 17 (a) An Andosol profile and (b)<br />

the associated landscape in Japan.<br />

a<br />

Photos by M. Nanzyo<br />

b<br />

Photos by M. Nanzyo<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

560<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


5 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with accumulation of organic matter in the topsoil<br />

CHERNOZEMS (Udolls)<br />

Chernozems are marked by their deep, dark and well-structured topsoil (FAO, 2014). The soil has an almost<br />

black colour (hue < 1, chroma ≤ 2.5), intricate pedality and strong water-stable structure, which is mostly<br />

due to the activity of earthworms. The (micro-)structure is granular or crumb-granular in the upper part of<br />

the topsoil and spongy in the lower one; density is close to 1 g cm -3 ; the Corg content ranges between 2.9<br />

and 3.5 percent in the upper 10 cm (with humates as predominant fraction), and exceeds 1.2 percent at<br />

the lower boundary of the chernic horizon (Lebedeva, 1974). Earthworms and burrowing mammals (mole<br />

rats, marmots, hamsters, ground squirrels) modify the horizons’ boundaries, effervescence depth and the<br />

pathways of solution flows. They also perform the exchange of material between the top and subsoil, which<br />

contributes to the profile stability; dark and brown krotovinas are common. Calcic horizon and/or secondary<br />

carbonates are diagnostic for all Chernozems. Secondary carbonates comprise labile forms: pseudomycelium<br />

and impregnation mottles corresponding in thin sections to needle-shaped crystals in voids, micritic (quasi)<br />

coatings, sometimes with sparite grains. The labile forms of carbonates are in agreement with the data on<br />

current hydrothermal soil regimes. Soft segregations – beloglazka – and hard nodules occur in more arid<br />

variants of Chernozems transitional to Kastanozems, while micritic pendants are confined to materials<br />

with rock fragments. In Russia, Chernozems are differentiated in accordance with secondary carbonate<br />

pedofeatures reflecting the current pedoclimate (Figure A 18).<br />

Continental climate with summer rains, soil freezing for two to four months, rich forb-grass natural<br />

vegetation, mostly loess as parent material, good drainage and level to undulating topography all contribute<br />

to the development of most typical profiles. The radiocarbon age of the topsoil ranges within 2 -3 kA in its upper<br />

part, and 5-8 kA in the lower part (Chichagova, 1985). Chernozems first appeared in the Late Miocene under<br />

grass ecosystems maintained by grazers (Retallack, 2001). However, most Chernozems have been cropped<br />

for at least the last two centuries. They are regarded as very fertile soils.<br />

Chernozems occur as a continuous belt in steppe and forest-steppe landscapes in Russia and the Ukraine,<br />

in the Great Plains of the US, in northern Kazakhstan and locally in some countries of Central Europe. They<br />

cover approximately 230 million ha.<br />

High fertility of Chernozems is provided by a unique combination of very favourable chemical and physical<br />

properties. More than half of their area is cropland - maize, wheat, sugar beet and sunflower are the main<br />

crops. In the drier parts of their area, the main limitations to agriculture are droughts with occasional dust<br />

storms, whereas in wetter parts both wind and water erosion are the main risks. Climate change along with<br />

water conservation measures and irrigation at the background of lithological discontinuity have resulted in<br />

the appearance of small wetlands in the steppe landscapes.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

561<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 18 (a) A Chernozem profile (Photo<br />

by J. Deckers) and (b) the associated<br />

landscape in the Central Russian<br />

Uplands.<br />

a<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

b<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

562<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


KASTANOZEMS (Ustolls and Xerolls)<br />

Kastanozems are humus-rich soils that were originally covered with early-maturing native grassland<br />

vegetation which produced a characteristic brown topsoil 20-40 cm thick in which the organic matter<br />

content ranges between 2 and 6 percent. Kastanozems have a brown topsoil with a granular or fine blocky<br />

structure. The rest of the profile is lighter in colour and is characterized by the secondary accumulation of<br />

calcite (Figure A 19). Kastanozems are chemically rich soils with a pH slightly above neutral. Near the surface,<br />

soil pH may reach a value of 8.0.<br />

These soils are found in relatively dry climatic zones (annual precipitation 200–400 mm). Kastanozems<br />

are mostly used for irrigated farming and grazing. Kastanozems have relatively high levels of available calcium<br />

ions and other nutrients. Carbonates weakly move down in the soil profile with percolating water to form<br />

layers of secondary carbonates; gypsum is also common in these soils. Kastanozems form in semi-arid regions<br />

under relatively sparse grasses and shrubs.<br />

The total extent of Kastanozems is estimated to be about 465 million ha. Major areas are in the Eurasian<br />

short-grass steppe belt (southern Ukraine, the south of the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Mongolia),<br />

in the Great Plains of the United States of America, in Mexico, and in the southwestern pampas and Chaco<br />

regions of Argentina, in Paraguay and southeastern Bolivia (FAO, 2014).<br />

The main obstacle to the agricultural use of these potentially rich soils is drought (Encyclopaedia of <strong>Soil</strong><br />

Science, 2008). Irrigation, which brings the threat of secondary salinization, is nearly always necessary to<br />

obtain high yields. Another serious problem on Kastanozems is overgrazing (Wang and Batkhishig, 2014),<br />

extensive grazing being another important use for these soils. Overgrazing on light-textured soils often<br />

produces deflation, destroying the topsoil.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

563<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 19 (a) A Kastanozem profile and<br />

(b) the associated landscape in Mongolia.<br />

a<br />

Photo by O. Bathkhishig<br />

b<br />

Photo by O. Bathkhishig<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

564<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


PHAEOZEMS (Udolls and Albolls)<br />

Phaeozems are soils with a mollic horizon which occur most frequently in the transitional areas between<br />

boreal forests and steppes, or in forest-free plains with temperate semi-humid climate (tall-grass prairies) on<br />

unconsolidated base-rich sediments, mostly loess or loess-like material. They may also occur locally under<br />

sparse herbaceous forests in the mountains (Figure A 20). They cover approximately 2 million km 2 , and their<br />

largest areas are found in the United States (Great Plains) and Canada, in the Argentinian Pampas, and in<br />

Manchuria. Mountainous variants were described in Southern Siberia and Northern Mongolia on gentle<br />

slopes with colluvium, under larch forests with a rich forb-grass cover (Zech et al., 2014; Vostokova and Gunin,<br />

2005). Phaeozems are formed under milder and more humid climates than Chernozems; the vegetation is<br />

mesophytic with less pronounced seasonal rhythms. Typically, natural grassland cover is mostly replaced by<br />

high-quality farmland, or may be modified by grazing. Phaeozems are among the most fertile soils owing to<br />

their favourable physical and chemical properties, along with moisture and thermic regimes (udic and mesic).<br />

The most conspicuous feature of Phaeozems is their dark, mostly thick, mollic horizon with traces<br />

of burrowing mammal activity, weakly acid to neutral, base saturation ranging within 50-100 percent.<br />

Phaeozems include some of the traditional forest-steppe Chernozems with deep secondary carbonates, and<br />

in this case they have a chernic horizon with its coprogenic structure underlain by a cambic or argic horizon.<br />

In the rest of Phaeozems, the subsoil horizons may be diverse: argic, cambic, calcic and petrocalcic; the latter<br />

phenomenon is common in Argentinian Phaeozems – a specific hard tosca layer that may occur within 1 m<br />

from the soil surface and be a limitation for plant growth (Moscatelli, 1991; Pazos, 2012). Some other properties<br />

were described in Phaeozems as well: albic material and uncoated silt grains, clay coatings, stagnic colour<br />

pattern, and sodic features (FAO, 2014). This broad array of properties is explained by the occurrence of<br />

Phaeozems in different environments providing for the development of additional pedogenic processes, some<br />

of them being limitations for farming.<br />

The global significance of Phaeozems is their high agricultural potential, as well as the prominent reserves<br />

of organic carbon accumulated in their topsoils. The limitations are not strong: they include wind erosion in<br />

dry years, water erosion on uplands, and water stagnation either during short rainy events or in case of high<br />

groundwater. In Manchuria, deep freezing and slow thawing are common. Local manifestations of sodicity<br />

have been recorded in Argentina and Western Siberia (Gerasimova, 2002).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

565<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 20 (a) A Phaeozem profile and (b)<br />

the associated landscape, Argentinian<br />

Pampa.<br />

a<br />

Photo by S.M. Pazos<br />

b<br />

Photo by S.M. Pazos<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

566<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


UMBRISOLS (Umbric Great Group in Aquept Suborder, Humic Subgroups in all Suborders of Inceptisols)<br />

Umbrisols are mostly mountainous soils of cool humid climates covered by meadows or sparse forests.<br />

They are characterized by a dark, humus-rich and acid topsoil horizon with a low base saturation. A rather<br />

weak crumb structure is characteristic for the topsoil horizon (Figure A 21).<br />

Umbrisols are formed under dense forb-grass natural vegetation (subalpine meadows) or under deciduous<br />

forests with a prominent lower canopy, sometimes with shrubs. This produces a large volume of plant residues,<br />

which in part may not be strongly decomposed, and elements of a moder humus form may be identified (Zech<br />

et al., 2014). Rather steep slopes and stony parent material provide sufficient drainage in spite of abundant<br />

precipitation and high air moisture; the soil is always moist, but stagnic or gleyic properties are absent. Typical<br />

examples of landscapes with Umbrisols are (sub-)tropical montane cloud forests in Mexico, Bolivia and Chile<br />

(Roman et al., 2010), although Umbrisols also occur at higher altitudes in sub-boreal continental mountain<br />

ranges. Igneous and metamorphic rocks are almost always the parent material for Umbrisols. Worldwide,<br />

Umbrisols occupy approximately 10 million km 2 (Zech et al., 2014).<br />

The geographical location of Umbrisols poses serious limitations for agricultural activities. Chemical<br />

fertility is not low owing to high humus content but is restricted by soil acidity. Liming and mineral fertilizers<br />

are required. Another limiting factor is the risk of erosion because of the predominance of steeper slopes in<br />

areas of Umbrisols. Most Umbrisols are left under natural forests or forestation activity as hard rock or stony<br />

eluvium are not serious obstacles for tree roots. Grazing is less common. Only in New Zealand have high inputs<br />

made it possible to practice intensive dairy farming on these soils (FAO, 2014).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

567<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 21 (a) An Umbrisol profile,<br />

(b) associated vegetation and (c) an<br />

associated landscape.<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

a<br />

c<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

b<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

568<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


6 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with accumulation of moderately soluble salts<br />

DURISOLS (Durids)<br />

Durisols may develop in arid and semi-arid conditions when a dissolution and accumulation of silica leads<br />

to the formation of a cemented hardpan that restricts the rooting depth of soils. These soils form mainly in<br />

alluvial and colluvial deposits in level or slightly sloping alluvial plains, terraces and piedmont plains. Stable<br />

landscapes occur where the Durisols have been eroded down to their resistant duripan, the material of which<br />

is often used in road construction. Durisols in low-lying areas may suffer from salt accumulation (Figure A 22).<br />

The duripan may range in thickness from 10 cm to more than 4 metres. There are two main types of duripans:<br />

those which are massive, and those with a platy or laminated structure that are coated with amorphous opal<br />

or microcrystalline silica.<br />

Durisols are known to be relatively extensive in Australia, South Africa, Namibia and the drier parts of the<br />

southern United States. Minor extents have been observed in South America and Kuwait. No estimate of their<br />

global extent is available (FAO, 2014). The agricultural use of Durisols is mostly limited to extensive grazing.<br />

Arable cropping is limited to areas where irrigation water is available.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

569<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 22 (a) A Durisol profile and (b) the<br />

associated landscape, Ecuador.<br />

a<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

b<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

570<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


CALCISOLS (Calcids, Argids, Cambids, some Cryids)<br />

Calcisols embrace a broad group of soils in arid and semiarid regions. Their name in the FAO-WRB system<br />

has been changed, with former Xerosols and sub-categories of Yermosols becoming Calcisols. Most national<br />

names for these soils comprise indications of their grey or brown colour and of the (semi-)desertic or aridic<br />

landscapes in which they occur (Figure A 23). Calcisols are widely spread in Mediterranean countries, centraleastern<br />

and southern Africa, the Near East, Mongolia, Australia, and southwestern United States. Calcisols<br />

are very widespread and are fifth in importance by surface area of all classified soils - 1000 million ha (FAO,<br />

2014).<br />

Calcisols have light coloured topsoil, poor in humus, sometimes free of carbonates, and a diagnostic calcic<br />

horizon. If there is a petrocalcic horizon within the upper 100 cm, the soil is also qualified for Calcisol. Calcic<br />

horizon is identified in the profile either ‘quantitatively’ by an elevated content of calcium carbonate in the<br />

fine earth ( ≥ 15 percent CaCO 3<br />

), or by an increase relative to the underlying horizon; or ‘qualitatively’ through<br />

the presence of secondary carbonates (FAO, 2014). Both criteria indicate mobilization and accumulation of<br />

carbonates in the soil (calcification). Both processes are known to depend on the moisture regime (Boettinger,<br />

2002), which is dry almost all year round but with a short rainy period. Calcic horizon is formed in other soils<br />

(salt-affected, Chernozems, Kastanozems) but in Calcisols it is their major characteristic. High content of<br />

carbonates may be checked in the field by effervescence with 1M hydrochloric acid: it is quick with abundant<br />

foam formed. Secondary carbonates occur as soft nodules (beloglazka), pendants and coatings on stones,<br />

impregnation mottles, veins, single or coalescent – pseudomycelium, in the fine earth. Calcisols are always<br />

base-saturated, neutral to alkaline, have a narrow C:N ratio, and Corg content below 1-2 percent; the profile<br />

curve of CaCO 3<br />

usually has a peak in the subsoil (Zech et al., 2014).<br />

Water deficit is a major limitation for using Calcisols, and extensive grazing is common in many lands<br />

dominated by Calcisols. Few areas are used for rainfed agriculture. Under irrigation, grain crops, cotton and<br />

vegetables are efficiently grown.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

571<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 23 (a) A Calcisol profile, (b) an<br />

associated landscape and (c and d)<br />

secondary carbonates in Calcisols.<br />

Photo by S. Khokhlov<br />

a<br />

Photo by S. Khokhlov<br />

c<br />

d<br />

Photo by S. Khokhlov<br />

b<br />

Photo by S. Khokhlov<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

572<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


GYPSISOLS (Gypsids)<br />

Gypsisols are characterized by a significant secondary accumulation of calcium sulphate. Accumulation<br />

of gypsum takes place initially as crystal aggregates in the voids of the soils. These aggregates grow<br />

by accretion, displacing the enclosing soil material. When the gypsic horizon occurs as a cemented<br />

impermeable layer, it is recognized as the petrogypsic horizon. These soils occur in the driest part of the arid<br />

climatic zone in unconsolidated deposits of base-rich weathering material on level land and in depressions.<br />

Natural vegetation on these soils is sparse and limited to xerophytes and ephemeral grasses and herbs<br />

(Figure A 24).<br />

The worldwide extent of Gypsisols has been estimated at about 100 million ha, exclusively occurring in<br />

desert areas. Major occurrences are found in the Near East, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, the<br />

Libyan and Namib deserts, in southern and central Australia and in the southwest of the United States.<br />

Large areas of Gypsisols are used for extensive grazing. When irrigation water is available these soils can<br />

be very productive, but the dissolution of gypsum results in the irregular subsidence of the land surface,<br />

caving in canal walls, and in the corrosion of concrete structures (FAO, 2014).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

573<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

b<br />

Photos by M. Gerasimova Photos by M. Gerasimova<br />

Figure A 24 (a) A Gypsisol profile and (b) an associated landscape.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

574<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


7 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with a clay-enriched subsoil<br />

RETISOLS (Glossic great groups of Alfisols and Ultisols)<br />

The clay illuviation within Retisols is typically manifested by an interfingering of bleached coarser-textured<br />

soil material into the illuvial horizon, forming a net-like pattern (e.g. a glossic horizon). The dominant soil<br />

processes involved in Retisol formation are argilluviation and biological enrichment of base cations. They are<br />

often characterized by ‘waxy’ argillans; a subangular blocky structure; silty or loamy textural classes; active<br />

and superactive CEC (cation-exchange capacity) classes; and the occurrence of lithologic discontinuities<br />

(Figure A 25).<br />

Retisols occur in climates where winters are cold and summers are short and cool with an annual<br />

precipitation between 500 and 1000 mm. They typically carry a temperate needle-leaf evergreen forest/<br />

woodland on often steeply sloping land. Their parent material is variable and includes loess, till, lacustrine<br />

and alluvium. Retisols are dated from the mid-Holocene or older e.g. > 5 000 years old. These soils generally<br />

exist in ‘tension zones’ (ecotones), reflecting a change in climate and/or vegetation.<br />

Regional distribution of the 320 million ha of Retisols is mainly in Europe and northern and central<br />

Asia. There are about 85 000 ha in the United States. Retisols are important for forestry, recreation, and<br />

limited livestock farming and they provide ecological services such as watershed protection and ecological<br />

sustainability<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

575<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 25 (a) A Retisol profile, (b) the<br />

“retic” pattern in a Retisol and (c) the<br />

associated landscape, Belgium.<br />

Photo by C. Marsboom<br />

a<br />

b<br />

Photo by M. Gerasimova<br />

c<br />

Photo by S. Mantel<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

576<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


ACRISOLS (Kan- great groups of Ultisols, e.g. with a kandic horizon)<br />

Acrisols are characterized by movement and accumulation of low-activity clays (cation-exchange capacity<br />

< 24 cmolc kg -1 clay) and a low base saturation (< 50 percent). The dominant soil processes involved in<br />

Acrisol formation include argilluviation and base-cation leaching (Figure A 26).<br />

Acrisols occur under equatorial or warm climates, fully humid or winter-dry with an annual precipitation<br />

exceeding 1 200 mm. They typically carry a tropical deciduous or tropical evergreen forest or are under<br />

savannah. They occur on old hilly land surfaces where the relief is variable but often steeply sloping. Their<br />

parent material is saprolite or colluviums. These soils are commonly more than 200 000 years old.<br />

Acrisols are used for forestry, recreation, agroforestry and shifting cultivation. They provide ecosystem<br />

services such as water protection and biotechnology for human health.<br />

Regional distribution is some 1 000 million ha worldwide, mainly in southeast Asia, the southern fringe<br />

of the Amazon Basin, southeastern United States, and east and west Africa.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

577<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

Photo by S. Mantel<br />

b<br />

Photo by S. Mantel<br />

Figure A 26 (a) An Acrisol profile and (b) the associated landform in Kalimantan, Indonesia.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

578<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


LIXISOLS (Kan - great groups of Alfisols, e.g. with a kandic horizon)<br />

Lixisols are characterized by the movement and accumulation of low-activity clays (cation-exchange<br />

capacity < 24 cmolc kg -1 clay) and a high base saturation (> 50 percent). The dominant soil processes<br />

involved in Lixisol formation include argilluviation and biological enrichment of base cations. These soils are<br />

often polygenetic and have strong textural differentiation and advanced weathering but with abundant base<br />

cycling (Figure A 27).<br />

Lixisols occur in the drier parts of the tropics and sub-tropics with a precipitation more than 1 200 mm<br />

annually. They typically carry a savannah vegetation. They occur on variable reliefs, while their parent<br />

material is saprolite or colluviums. These soils are commonly more than 200 000 years old.<br />

Regional distribution is 435 million ha worldwide, mainly in sub-Sahelian and east Africa, Central and<br />

South America, the Indian Subcontinent, and southeast Asia and Australia<br />

Lixisols are used for forestry, low-volume grazing and agro-forestry and provide ecological services such as<br />

water protection and ecological sustainability.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

579<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 27 (a) A Lixisol profile and (b) the<br />

associated landscape, Brazil.<br />

a<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

b<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

580<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


ALISOLS (Ultisols with an argillic horizon)<br />

Alisols are characterized by movement and accumulation of high-activity clays (cation-exchange capacity<br />

> 24 cmolc kg -1 clay) and a low base saturation (< 50 percent). The dominant soil processes involved in<br />

Alisol formation include argilluviation and base-cation leaching. Alisols have high Al and very low plant<br />

nutrients (Figure A 28).<br />

Alisols occur under equatorial or warm climates, fully humid or winter-dry with an annual precipitation<br />

exceeding 1 200 mm. They typically carry a tropical deciduous forest or tropical evergreen forest. They<br />

occur where the topography is variable but often hilly or undulating, while their parent material is strongly<br />

weathered basic rocks and unconsolidated sediments. These soils are commonly more than 200 000 years<br />

old.<br />

Regional distribution of the approximately 100 million ha of Alisols globally is mainly in Central and<br />

South America, the Caribbean, west and east Africa, southeastern Asia, and northern Australia. Alisols are<br />

used for forestry, low-volume grazing and, to a limited extent, for agriculture.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

581<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 28 (a) An Alisol profile and (b) the<br />

associated landscape, Belgium.<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information.<br />

a<br />

b<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

582<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


LUVISOLS (Alfisols with an argillic horizon)<br />

Luvisols are characterized by clay movement, accumulation of high-activity clays (CEC > 24 cmolc kg -1<br />

clay) and a high base saturation (> 50 percent). The dominant soil processes involved in Luvisol formation<br />

include argilluviation and biological enrichment of base cations. They are either derived from base-rich<br />

materials or have not been subject to strong weathering (Figure A 29).<br />

Luvisols occur in humid climates with warm summers and snowfall during winter. They typically carry a<br />

vegetation of deciduous forest or woodland. They occur on flat or gently sloping topography. Their parent<br />

material is till, loess, alluvium or colluvium. These soils are commonly more than 5 000 years old.<br />

There are 500-600 million ha of Luvisols worldwide, mainly in the Eastern European Plain, Western<br />

Siberian Plain, north central and northeastern United States, central Europe, and South Australia. Luvisols<br />

are used for agriculture, forestry and grazing. They are among the most productive soils worldwide and<br />

provide ecological services such as food and energy security, water protection, and ecological sustainability.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

583<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 29 (a) A Luvisol profile and (b) the<br />

associated landscape, China.<br />

a<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information.<br />

b<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

584<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


8 | <strong>Soil</strong>s with little or no profile development<br />

These soils have little or no profile development due to age, parent material, soil depth, transport, or<br />

deposition.<br />

CAMBISOLS (Inceptisols)<br />

Cambisols are young soils with beginning subsurface soil development. Characteristics that are more<br />

easily modified include structure, colour and bulk density. Structure begins to develop as wetting and drying<br />

cycles occur. Colour is modified through additions and removals such as carbonates and silica. Bulk density<br />

decreases as elements are weathered and organisms create voids. Typical soil horizonation is A-Bw-C<br />

(Figure A 30).<br />

Cambisols are found in a wide range of climates, in all vegetation types, and level to steep reliefs. The<br />

typical parent material is medium and fine-textured, derived from a wide range of rocks, mostly in colluvial,<br />

alluvial or aeolian deposits. Cambisols form in almost all environments except permafrost.<br />

The spatial distribution of Cambisols is estimated to be 1 500 million ha worldwide. Countries with<br />

more than 50 million ha are Russia, China, Canada and India. Cambisols are the dominant soil in San<br />

Marino, Saint Lucia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Jersey, Fiji, Belize, Italy, Luxembourg,<br />

Samoa, Guernsey, Anguilla, Czech Republic, Georgia, Haiti, American Samoa, Solomon Islands, Bosnia and<br />

Herzegovina, and New Zealand.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

585<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 30 (a) A Cambisol profile and (b)<br />

the associated landscape, China.<br />

a<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information.<br />

b<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

586<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


REGOSOLS (Orthents)<br />

Regisols are the youngest soils with no pedogenic horizons and no evidence of soil forming processes.<br />

They may, nonetheless, support vegetation but do not meet criteria to be classified as another soil. They are<br />

located in inert or slowly soluble parent material, recent deposits, or excavation spoils. The profile horizons<br />

are usually A-C (Figure A 31).<br />

Regisols exist in all climates and vegetation. They occur on level terrain to steep slopes.<br />

Countries with more than 500 000 km 2 are Canada, Russia and Mexico. These are dominant soils in<br />

Curacao, Aruba, Bahamas, Bonaire, Saint Eustatius, Saba, Cayman Islands, Norway and El Salvador.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

587<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


a<br />

b<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

Figure A 31 (a) A Regosol profile and (b) the associated landscape, China.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

588<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


ARENOSOLS (Psamments)<br />

Arenosols are sandy soils that may have diagnostic horizons below meter. These soils have low water<br />

holding capacity and where there is no plant cover they are subject to wind transport. Profile horizonation is<br />

A-C (Figure A 32).<br />

Arenosols occur in any climate except permafrost. Vegetation varies widely with climate. They are found<br />

on level to steep slopes. Typical textures are sandy or loamy sand on dunes, beaches, lacustrine deposits or<br />

weathered sandstone or coarse granite. The age can be recent to Pliocene or older.<br />

Arenesols occupy approximately 1 300 million ha or about 10 percent of the land surface of the globe.<br />

Countries with more than 400 000 km 2 are Australia, Sudan, China, Angola and Botswana. These are the<br />

dominant soils in Botswana and Angola.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

589<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 32 (a) An Arenosol profile in<br />

South Korea and (b) an Arenosol profile in<br />

New Mexico.<br />

Photo by H. Eswaran, USDA.<br />

a<br />

b<br />

Photo by H. Eswaran, USDA.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

590<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


FLUVISOLS (Fluvents, Fluv-Subroups)<br />

Fluvisols are soils developedin fluvial, lacustrine or marine deposits A noted characteristic is an irregular<br />

decrease in organic carbon. In fact, significant soil organic carbon is buried by depositional events. Typical<br />

horizonation is A-C 2<br />

-C 3<br />

-Ab (Figure A 33).<br />

Fluvisols are found in all climates except permafrost. Vegetation depends on climate and proximity to<br />

water. The relief is usually level. Most of the soils are of recent origin.<br />

Fluvisols occupy approximately 350 million ha of the land surface of the globe. Countries with more than<br />

20 million ha are Russia, China and Indonesia.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

591<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 33 (a) A Fluvisol profile in<br />

Wisconsin and (b) a Fluvisol profile in<br />

Germany.<br />

Photo from the SSSA Marbut Slide Set<br />

a<br />

b<br />

Photo by H. Eswaran, USDA<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

592<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


9 | Permanently flooded soils<br />

WASSENTS, WASSISTS (subaquatic in Histosols and Fluvisols)<br />

Diagnostic horizons are typically absent from subaqueous soils. The exception is horizons formed from<br />

the accumulation of organic materials derived from submerged aquatic vegetation. Buried horizons have<br />

been observed because of sea level rise. In estuarine subaqueous soils, sulphides typically accumulate in low<br />

energy environments (sulphidization). Another important process is pedoturbation (faunal). This is especially<br />

the case in estuarine subaqueous soils where benthic organisms such as clams and worms burrow and mix<br />

the upper soil materials.<br />

Subaqueous soils are found in shallow areas of lakes, ponds and estuarine systems such as bays and<br />

lagoons in any climate. The distribution of the different subaqueous soil types typically follows the<br />

submerged landscape which is broken into different units such as submerged beach, bay bottom, washover<br />

fan, or flood-tidal delta. The parent materials are marine or lake sediments that have been brought in<br />

by streams and rivers emptying into the system or through inlets bringing in tidal water and sediment, or<br />

sediments brought in during storm events where over-wash events move materials from the barrier island<br />

into the lagoon. These are young soils, similar to floodplains in the subaerial system, and having little profile<br />

development. Buried horizons are common (figure A 34).<br />

Subaqueous soils provide the structure and habitat for the range of benthic organisms that live in these<br />

systems. Submerged aquatic vegetation is rooted in these soils and obtains some nutrients from the soils.<br />

Recent studies have shown that subaqueous soils store and sequester equivalent amounts of soil organic<br />

carbon as their subaerial counterparts. These soils serve as sinks for heavy metals and under certain<br />

conditions are important for water quality, storing N and providing denitrification. Shellfish aquaculture for<br />

species such as hard clams and oysters is a common practice on shallow estuarine subaqueous soils.<br />

A range of submerged aquatic vegetation can be found rooted in these soils, depending on the location,<br />

climate and water quality. Common species in estuarine systems include eelgrass (Zostera marina), turtle<br />

grass (Thalassia sp.), and widgeon grass (Ruppia sp.). In freshwater systems pondweed (Potamogeton sp.),<br />

watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sp.), and fanwort (Cabomba sp.) are commonly found.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

593<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Figure A 34 (a) A Wassent profile and<br />

(b) the associated landscape, the<br />

Netherlands.<br />

a<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

b<br />

Photo by ISRIC World <strong>Soil</strong> Information<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

594<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Kastanozems<br />

Histosols<br />

Gypsisols<br />

Greyzems<br />

Gleysols<br />

Ferralsols<br />

Fluvisols<br />

Cambisols<br />

Calcisols<br />

Chernozems<br />

Anthrosols<br />

Arenosols<br />

Andosols Alisols<br />

Acrisols<br />

No data<br />

Luvisols Glaciers<br />

Leptosols<br />

No data<br />

Salt Flats<br />

Urban, mining<br />

Water<br />

Sand Dunes<br />

Rock outcrop<br />

Vertisols<br />

Solonetz<br />

Solonchaks<br />

Regosols<br />

Podzols<br />

Plinthosols<br />

Planosols<br />

Phaeozems<br />

Podzoluvisols<br />

Nitisols<br />

Lixisols<br />

Island<br />

Figure A 35: Global <strong>Soil</strong> Map of the World based on HWSD and FAO Revised Legend<br />

(Nachtergaele and Petri, 2008)<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

595<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


References<br />

Ahmad, N. & Mermut, A.R., eds. 1996. Vertisols and Technologies for Their Management. Developments in<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Science, Volume 24. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier. 548 pp.<br />

Ahmad, N. 1983. Vertisols. In L. P. Wilding., N.E. Smeck & G.F. Hall, eds. Pedogenesis and <strong>Soil</strong> Taxonomy II. The<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Orders. Developments in <strong>Soil</strong> Science, Volume 11, Part B, pp. 91-123. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier. 410<br />

pp.<br />

Blume, H.P. & Leinweber, P. 2004. Plaggen <strong>Soil</strong>s: landscape history, properties and classification. J. Plant<br />

Nutr. <strong>Soil</strong> Sci. 167(3): 319-327.<br />

Boettinger, J. 2002. Calcification. In R. Lal, ed. Encyclopaedia of <strong>Soil</strong> Science , pp. 131-134. New York, Marcel<br />

Dekker Inc. 1476 pp.<br />

Brinkman, R. 1979. Ferrolysis, a soil-forming process in hydromorphic conditions. Agricututal Research Report<br />

887: vi + 106 pp. Wageningen, PUDOC (PhD thesis)<br />

Charzyński, P., Bednarek, R., Hulisz, P. & Zawadzka, A. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong>s within Toruń urban area. In P. Charzyński,<br />

P. Hulisz & R. Bednarek, eds. Technogenic soils of Poland, pp. 17–30. Toruń, Polish Society of <strong>Soil</strong> Science. 357 pp.<br />

Chesworth, W., ed. 2008. Encyclopedia of soil science. Springer Science & Business Media<br />

Chichagova, O.A. 1985. Radiocarbon Dating of <strong>Soil</strong> Humus. Moscow, Nauka Publ. 157 pp. [in Russian].<br />

Coulombe, C., Wilding L. & Dixon, J. 1996a. Overview of Vertisols: characteristics and impacts on society.<br />

In D.L. Sparks, ed. Advances in Agronomy, Volume 57, pp. 289-376. San Diego, Academic Press. Inc. 488 pp.<br />

Coulombe, C.E., Dixon, J.B. & Wilding, L.P. 1996b. Mineralogy and chemistry of Vertisols. Developments in<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Science, 24: 115-200.<br />

Coulombe, C.E., Wilding L.P. & Dixon, J.B. 2000. Vertisols. In: M.E. Sumner, ed. Handbook of <strong>Soil</strong> Science,<br />

pp. E 269-286. Boca Raton, CRC Press. 1442 pp.<br />

Couwenberg, J., Dommain, R. & Joosten, H. 2010. Greenhouse gas fluxes from tropical peatlands in<br />

south-east Asia. Global Change Biology, 16(6): 1715-1732.<br />

Dokuchaev, V.V., ed. 1879. Cartography of Russian <strong>Soil</strong>s. St.-Petersburg. 123 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Dudal, R. & Eswaran, H. 1988. Distribution, properties and classification of Vertisols. In L.P. Wilding & R.<br />

Puentes, eds. Vertisols: Their distribution, properties, classification and management. SMSS Technical Monograph 18,<br />

pp. 1-22. Texas, A&M Printing Center, College Station, TX. 193 pp.<br />

FAO. 2014. World Reference Base for <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> 2014. International soil classification system for naming soils and<br />

creating legends for soil maps, World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Reports No 106, FAO, Rome. 191 pp.<br />

Fridland, M.V., Egorov V.V. & Rudneva, E.N. 1988. <strong>Soil</strong> Map of Russian Federation, scale 1:2.5M, 16 sheets. 1988.<br />

Moscow, Dokuchaev <strong>Soil</strong> Science institute.<br />

Gardi, C., Angelini, M., Barceló, S., Comerma, J., Cruz Gaistardo, C., Encina Rojas, A., Jones, A.,<br />

Krasilnikov, P., Mendonça Santos Brefin, M.L., Montanarella, L., Muñiz Ugarte, O., Schad, P., Vara<br />

Rodríguez, M.I. & Vargas, R., eds. 2014. <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas of Latin America and the Caribbean. Europe Commission –<br />

Publications Office of the European Union – L-2995 Luxembourg. 176 pp. [in Spanish]<br />

Gerasimova, M.I. 2002. Genetic and geographic features of the soil cover in Argentinian Pampa. In N.S.<br />

Kasimova & M.I. Gerasimova, eds. Landscape geochemistry and soil geography, pp. 324-343. Smolensk,<br />

Oecumene. 456 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

596<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Jones, A., Breuning-Madsen, H., Brossard, M., Dampha, A., Deckers, J., Dewitte, O., Gallali, T., Hallett,<br />

S., Jones, R., Kilasara, M., Le Roux, P., Micheli, E., Montanarella, L., Spaargaren, O., Thiombiano, L., Van<br />

Ranst, E., Yemefack, M. & Zougmoré R., eds. 2013. <strong>Soil</strong> Atlas of Africa. European Commission, Publications<br />

Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 176 pp.<br />

Karavaeva, N.A., ed. 1982. Bogging and <strong>Soil</strong> Evolution. Moscow, Nauka. 296 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Kolka, R.K., Rabenhorst, M.C. & Swanson, D. 2012. Histosols. In P.M. Huang, Y. Li & M.E. Sumner, eds.<br />

Handbook of <strong>Soil</strong> Sciences: Properties and Processes, Second Edition. CRC Press, pp. 33/8 – 33/29. Taylor & Francis<br />

Group, Boca Raton, London, New York.<br />

Lebedeva, I.I. 1974. Modern concepts of chernozems. In V.V. Fridland & I.I. Lebedeva, eds. Chernozems of the<br />

USSR. Vol. 1, pp. 64-281. Moscow, Kolos. 560 pp. [in Russian]<br />

Lehmann, A. & Stahr, K. 2007. Nature and Significance of Anthropogenic Urban <strong>Soil</strong>s. J. <strong>Soil</strong>s Sediments, 7(4):<br />

247–260.<br />

Lucas, Y., Montes, C.R., Mounier, S., Loustau Cazalet, M., Ishida, D., Achard, R., Garnier, C., Coulomb,<br />

B. & Melfi, A.J. 2012. Biogeochemistry of an Amazonian podzol-ferralsol soil system with white kaolin. Geochim.<br />

Cosmochim. Ac., 71: 3211–3222.<br />

McGarity, J.W., Hoult, E.H. & So, H.B., eds. 1984. The Properties and Utilization of Cracking Clay <strong>Soil</strong>s. Reviews<br />

in Rural Science 5. Armidale, New South Wales, University of New England. 386 pp.<br />

Morel, J.L., Chenu, C. & Lorenz, K. 2015. Ecosystem services provided by soils of urban, industrial, traffic,<br />

mining, and military areas (SUITMAs) J. <strong>Soil</strong>s Sediments, 15(8): 1659-1666.<br />

Moscatelli, G. 1991. Los suelos de la región Pampeana. In O., Barsky, ed. El desarrollo agropecuario pampeano.<br />

Buenos Aires, Argentina, INDEC-INTA-IICA. 799 pp.<br />

Muckenhausen, E. 1963. Le Pseudogley. Science du sol, 1: 21-29.<br />

Nachtergaele, F.O. & Petri, M., eds. 2008. Mapping land use systems at global and regional scale for land<br />

degradation assessment and analysis. LADA Technical Report #8. FAO, Rome<br />

Nachtergaele, F.O. 2010. The classification of Leptosols in the World Reference Base for <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>. 19th World<br />

Congress of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, <strong>Soil</strong> Solutions for a Changing World 1 – 6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia. Published<br />

on DVD.<br />

Pazos, S.M. 2012. Polygenesis of soils in the central-SE area of Buenos Aires. Trabajo n° 668, Comisión V.<br />

Actas XIX Congreso Latinoamericano y XXIII Congreso Argentino de la Ciencia del Suelo. Asociación Argentina<br />

de la Ciencia del Suelo y Sociedad Latinoamericana de la Ciencia del Suelo. Mar del Plata. 6 pp. [In Spanish]<br />

Puentes, R. &. Wilding, L.P. 1990. Effects of long term soil management on infiltration rates and macroporosity of<br />

vertisols. Symposium Session B 1. Trans. 14th Int. Congress <strong>Soil</strong> Sci., Kyoto, Japan, 5: 244-249.<br />

Retallack, G.V., ed. 2001. <strong>Soil</strong>s of the Past: an Introduction to Paleopedology. 2nd Edition. Oxford, Blackwell<br />

Science. 600 pp.<br />

Roman, L., Scatena, F.N. & Bruijnzeel, L.A. 2010. Global and local variations in tropical montane cloud<br />

forest. In L.A. Bruijnzeel, F.N Scatena & L.S. Hamilton, eds. Tropical montane cloud forest science for conservation<br />

and management, pp.77-89. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. 691 pp.<br />

Sauer, D., Sponagel, H., Sommer, M., Giani, L., Jahn, R. & Stahr, K. 2007. Review article – Podzol: <strong>Soil</strong><br />

of the year 2007 – A review on its genesis, occurrence, and functions. Journal of Plant Nutrition and <strong>Soil</strong> Science,<br />

170(5): 581-597.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff, ed. 1999. Chapter 20: Vertisols. In <strong>Soil</strong> Taxonomy. A Basic System of <strong>Soil</strong> Classification for<br />

Making and Interpreting <strong>Soil</strong> Surveys. 2nd Edition. Agriculture Handbook No. 436. Pp. 783-817. Washington, DC, U.S.<br />

Department of Agriculture, Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Service. 886 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

597<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff, ed. 2014. Keys to <strong>Soil</strong> taxonomy. 12th Edition. Washington, DC, U.S. Departmnet of<br />

Agriculture, Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Service. 372 pp.<br />

Sombroek, W.G., ed. 1966. Amazon <strong>Soil</strong>s: A Reconnaissance of the <strong>Soil</strong>s of the Brazilian Amazon Region.<br />

Wageningen, The Netherlands, PUDOC. 300 pp.<br />

Stigliani, W.M. 1988. Changes in valued capacities of soils and sediments as indicators of nonlinear and<br />

time-delayed environmental effects. International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 10(3): 245-<br />

307.<br />

Strack, M., ed. 2008. Peatlands and climate change. Jyväskylä, Finland, International Peat Society. 227 pp.<br />

Stroganova, M., Miagkova, A., Prokofieva, T., Skvortsova, I. & Karpachevskiĭ, M.L., eds. 1998. <strong>Soil</strong>s of<br />

Moscow and urban environment. Moscow. 177 pp.<br />

Tarnocai C. & Campbell, I. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong>s of the polar regions, In R. Lal, ed. Encyclopaedia of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, pp.<br />

1018-1012. New York-Basel, Marcel Dekker Inc. 1476 pp.<br />

Tarnocai, C., Canadell, J.G., Schuur, E.A.G., Kuhry, P., Mazhitova, G. & Zimov, S. 2009. <strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon<br />

pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Global Biochemical Cycles 23(2): GB 2023.<br />

Van Ranst, E., Dumon, M., Tolossa, A.R., Cornelis, J.T., Stoops, G., Vandenberghe, R.E. & Deckers,<br />

S. 2011. Revisiting ferolysis processes in the formation of Planosols for rationalizing the soils with stagnic<br />

properties in WRB. Geoderma 163(3-4): 265-274.<br />

Vostokova, E.A. & Gunin, P.D., eds. 2005. Ecosystems of Mongolia – Atlas (General Scientific Edition).<br />

Moscow, Russian Academy of Sciences. 48 pp.<br />

Wang, Q. & Batkhishig, O. 2014. Impact of Overgrazing on Semiarid Ecosystem <strong>Soil</strong> Properties: A Case<br />

Study of the Eastern Hovsogol Lake Area, Mongolia. Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography, 4(1): 140.<br />

Wilding, L.P. &Tessier D. 1988. Genesis of Vertisols: Shrink swell phenomena. In L.P. Wilding. & R. Puentes,<br />

eds. Vertisols: Their Distribution, Properties, Classification and Management. pp. 55-81.Texas A&M University Press.<br />

193 pp.<br />

Wilding, L.P. 2000. Classification of <strong>Soil</strong>s.In M.E. Sumner, ed. Handbook of <strong>Soil</strong> Science. pp. E 175-E 183. CRC<br />

Press.<br />

World Energy Council, ed. 2013. World Energy insight 2013. London, UK, FIRST. 100 pp.<br />

Zaidelman, F.R. 1994. A concept of gleyization and its role in the pedogenesis. Archives of agronomy and soil<br />

science 38(5): 323-335.<br />

Zech, W., Schad, P. & Hintermaier-Erhard, G., eds. 2014. Böden der Welt. Ein Bildatlas. Springer Spektrum.<br />

Berlin Heidelberg, 164 pp.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Annex | <strong>Soil</strong> groups, characteristics,<br />

598<br />

distribution and ecosystem services


Glossary of technical terms<br />

Aerobic: a condition in which molecular oxygen is freely available (ISO, 2013).<br />

Anaerobic: descriptive of a condition in which molecular oxygen is not available (ISO, 2013).<br />

Available water capacity: soil water content useable by plants, based on the effective root penetration<br />

depth (ISO, 2013).<br />

Bare <strong>Soil</strong>: a land cover class that includes any geographic area dominated by natural abiotic surfaces (bare<br />

soil, sand, rocks, etc.) where the natural vegetation is absent or almost absent (covers less than 2 percent)<br />

(Latham et al., 2014).<br />

Biodegradation: physical and chemical breakdown of a substance by living organisms, mainly bacteria<br />

and/or fungi (ISO, 2013).<br />

Contaminant: substance or agent present in the soil as a result of human activity (ISO, 2013).<br />

Cropland: a land cover class that includes all cultivated herbaceous crops, woody crops and multiple and<br />

layered crops (Latham et al., 2014).<br />

Decomposition: breakdown of complex organic substances into simpler molecules or ions by physical,<br />

chemical and/or biological processes (ISO, 2013).<br />

Desertification: land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors,<br />

including climatic variations and human activities (UNCCD, 2011).<br />

Drylands: tropical and temperate areas with an aridity index (annual rainfall/annual potential evaporation)<br />

of less than 0.65 (UNEP, 2005).<br />

Grassland: a land cover class that includes any geographic area dominated by natural herbaceous plants<br />

(grasslands, prairies, steppes and savannahs) with a cover of 10 percent or more, irrespective of different<br />

human and/or animal activities e.g. grazing, selective fire management (Latham et al., 2014).<br />

Habitat ecosystem functions: the ability of soil or soil materials to serve as a habitat for micro-organisms,<br />

plants, soil-living animals and their interactions (ISO, 2013).<br />

Humification: decomposition of organic material followed by a synthesis of humic substances (ISO, 2013).<br />

Land: terrestrial bio-productive system that comprises soil, vegetation, other biota, and the ecological and<br />

hydrological processes that operate within the system (UNCCD, 2011).<br />

Leaching: the dissolution and movement of dissolved substances by water (ISO, 2013).<br />

Mineralization: final stage of the biodegradation of organic matter or organic substances into carbon<br />

dioxide, water and hydrides, oxides or other mineral salts (ISO, 2013).<br />

Mitigation (of land degradation): an intervention intended to reduce ongoing degradation at a stage<br />

when degradation has already begun. The main aim here is to halt further degradation and to start improving<br />

resources and their functions (FAO, 2015).<br />

Parent material: The unconsolidated and more or less chemically weathered mineral or organic matter<br />

from which the solum of soils is developed by pedogenic processes (<strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America, 2008).<br />

Particle size distribution: distribution of the soil mineral particles according to predefined classes of size<br />

(ISO, 2013).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Glossary of technical terms<br />

599


Pedon: the smallest, three-dimensional unit at the surface of the earth that is considered as a soil. It forms<br />

a conceptual foundation for the study of soils as geographic entities (Hole and Campbell, 1985).<br />

pH-value: the negative logarithm (base 10) of the concentration of hydrogen ions, expressed in moles/l in<br />

aqueous solution and varying between 0 (extremely acid) to 14 (extremely alkaline) (ISO, 2013).<br />

Rehabilitation: action to restore soil already degraded to such an extent that the original use is no longer<br />

possible and the land has become practically unproductive. Generally, long term and often costly investments<br />

are needed to show any impact (FAO, 2015).<br />

Shrub-covered area: a land cover class that includes any geographical area dominated by natural shrubs<br />

having a cover of 10 percent or more (Latham et al., 2014).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>: the upper layer of the Earth’s crust transformed by weathering and physical/chemical and biological<br />

processes. It is composed of mineral particles, organic matter, water, air and living organisms organized in<br />

genetic soil horizons (ISO, 2013).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> degradation: the diminishing capacity of the soil to provide ecosystem goods and services as desired<br />

by its stakeholders (refined from FAO, 2015).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> ecosystem functions: description of the significance of soils to humans and the environment. Examples<br />

are: (1) control of substance and energy cycles within ecosystems; (2) basis for the life of plants, animals and<br />

man; (3) basis for the stability of buildings and roads; (4) basis for agriculture and forestry; (5) carrier of genetic<br />

reservoir; (6) document of natural history; and (7) archaeological and paleo-ecological document (ISO, 2013).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> health: the continued capacity of the soil to function as a vital living system, within ecosystem and<br />

land-use boundaries, to sustain biological productivity, promote the quality of air and water environments,<br />

and maintain plant, animal, and human health (Doran, Stamatiadis and Haberern, 2002).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic carbon (SOC): a summarizing parameter including all of the carbon forms for dissolved (DOC:<br />

Dissolved Organic Carbon) and total organic compounds (TOC: Total Organic Carbon) in soils (ISO, 2013).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> organic matter (SOM): matter consisting of plant and/or animal organic materials, and the conversion<br />

products of those materials in soils (ISO, 2013).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Processes: physical or reactive geochemical and biological processes which may attenuate,<br />

concentrate, immobilize, liberate, degrade or otherwise transform substances in soil (ISO, 2013).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> quality: all current positive or negative properties with regard to soil utilization and soil functions (ISO,<br />

2013).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> structure: the arrangement of soil particles in a variety of recognized shapes and sizes (ISO, 2013).<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> threats: see Box ‘<strong>Soil</strong> Threat Definitions’<br />

Solum: comprises the surface layer and subsoil layers that have been altered by soil formation (<strong>Soil</strong> Survey<br />

Staff, 1993).<br />

Sparse vegetation: a land cover class that includes any geographic areas where the cover of natural<br />

vegetation is between 2 percent and 10 percent (Latham et al., 2014).<br />

Sustainable land management (SLM): the use of land resources, including soils, water, animals and plants<br />

for the production of goods to meet changing human needs while ensuring the long term productive potential<br />

of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions (UNCED, 1992).<br />

Sustainable soil management (SSM): sets of activities that maintain or enhance the supporting,<br />

provisioning, regulating and cultural services provided by soils without significantly impairing either the soil<br />

functions that enable those services or biodiversity (adapted from GSP, 2015).<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Glossary of technical terms<br />

600


Topsoil: the upper part of a natural soil that is generally dark coloured and has a higher content of organic<br />

matter and nutrients when compared to the (mineral) horizons below. It excludes the litter layer (ISO, 2013).<br />

Tree-covered area: a land cover class that includes any geographic area dominated by natural tree plants<br />

with a cover of 10 percent or more. Areas planted with trees for afforestation purposes and forest plantations<br />

are included in this class (Latham et al., 2014).<br />

References<br />

Doran, J.W., Stamatiadis, S. & Haberern, J. 2002. <strong>Soil</strong> health as an indicator for sustainable management.<br />

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 88(2002): 107–110.<br />

FAO & ITPS. 2015. Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> (SWSR). Food and Agriculture Organization of the<br />

United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on <strong>Soil</strong>s, Rome, Italy. In press.<br />

FAO. 2015. FAO soils portal. Available at http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/it/<br />

GSP. 2015. Revised World <strong>Soil</strong> Charter. Available at<br />

Pillars/annexVII_WSC.pdf<br />

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/GSP/docs/ITPS_<br />

ISO. 2013. Draft international standard ISO/DIS 11074. 9 pp.<br />

Latham, J., Cumani, R., Rosati, I. & Bloise, M. 2014. Global Land Cover SHARE (GLC-SHARE) database<br />

Beta-Release Version 1.0 - FAO, Rome.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Science Society of America. 2008. Glossary of soil science terms. Available at<br />

https://www.soils.org/publications/soils-glossary<br />

Hole, F.D. & Campbell, J.B. 1985. <strong>Soil</strong> Landscape Analysis. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ. 196 pp.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Staff. 1993. “<strong>Soil</strong> Survey Manual”. <strong>Soil</strong> Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook<br />

18.<br />

UNCCD. 2011. Desertification: a visual synthesis. UN Convention to Combat Dersertification (UNCCD)<br />

Secretariat. 50 pp.<br />

UNCED. 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June<br />

1992. 351 pp.<br />

UNEP. 2005. Chapter 22. Drylands Systems. In R., Hassan, R., Scholes & N. Ash, eds. Ecosystems and Human<br />

Wellbeing: Current State and Trends, Volume 1. pp. 623-662. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Glossary of technical terms<br />

601


Authors and affiliations<br />

Adams, Mary Beth<br />

Adhya Tapan, Kumar<br />

Agus, Fahmuddin<br />

Al Shankithi, Abdullah<br />

Alavi Panah, Sayed Kazem<br />

Alegre, Julio<br />

Aleman, Garcia<br />

Alfaro, Marta<br />

Alyabina, Irina<br />

Anderson, Chris<br />

Anjos, Lucia<br />

Arao, Tomohito<br />

Arrouays, Dominique<br />

Asakawa, Susumu<br />

Aulakh, Milkha Singh<br />

Ayuke, Frederick<br />

Badraoui, Mohamed<br />

Bai, Zhaohai<br />

Baldock, Jeff<br />

Balks, Megan<br />

Balyuk, Svyatoslav<br />

Bardgett, Richard<br />

Basiliko, Nathan<br />

Bationo, André<br />

Batkhishig, Ochirbat<br />

Bedard-Haughn, Angela<br />

Bielders, Charles<br />

Black, Helaina<br />

Bock, Michael<br />

Bockheim, James<br />

Bondeau, Alberte<br />

Brinkman, Robert<br />

Bristow, Keith<br />

USDA Forest Service, West Viriginia, USA.<br />

KIIT School of Biotechnology, Odisha, India.<br />

Indonesian <strong>Soil</strong> Research Institute, Indonesia.<br />

ICBA, United Arab Emirates.<br />

University of Teheran, Iran.<br />

National Agrarian University La Molina, Peru.<br />

Ministry of Agriculture, Cuba.<br />

INIA, Remehue, Chile.<br />

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russian Federation<br />

Massey University, New Zealand.<br />

Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.<br />

National Institute for Agro-Environmental Science (NIAES), Japan<br />

National Institute for Agricultural Research, France.<br />

Nagoya University, Japan.<br />

Punjab Agricultural University, India.<br />

University of Nairobi, Kenya.<br />

National Agronomic Research Institute, Morocco.<br />

China Agriculture University, China.<br />

CSIRO, Australia.<br />

University of Waikato, New Zealand.<br />

National Institute of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, Ukraine<br />

Manchester University, UK.<br />

Laurentian University, Canada<br />

AGRA Kenya. (Burkina Faso).<br />

Academy of Sciences, Mongolia<br />

University of Saskatchewan, Canada.<br />

Catholic University Louvain, Belgium (USA)<br />

The James Hutton Institute, UK<br />

Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Canada<br />

Wisconsin University, USA.<br />

Mediterranean Institute of Biodiversity and Ecology (IMBE),<br />

France<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Science Society The Netherlands.<br />

CSIRO, Australia.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Authors and affiliations<br />

602


Broll, Gabrielle<br />

Bruulsma, Tom<br />

Bunning, Sally<br />

Bustamante, Mercedes<br />

Camps Arbestain, Marta<br />

Caon, Lucrezia<br />

Carating, Rodel<br />

Cerkowniak, Darrel<br />

Charzynski, Przemyslaw<br />

Chude, Victor<br />

Clark, Joanna<br />

Clothier, Brent<br />

Coelho, Maurício Rizzato<br />

Colditz, Roland René<br />

Collins, Alison<br />

Comerma, Juan<br />

Compton, Jana<br />

Condron, Leo<br />

Corso, Maria Laura<br />

Cotrufo, Francesca<br />

Critchley, William<br />

Cruse, Richard<br />

da Silva, Manuela<br />

Dabney, Seth<br />

Daniels, Lee<br />

de Souza Dias, Moacir<br />

Dick, Warren<br />

Dos Santos Baptista, Isaurinda<br />

Drury, Craig<br />

El Mustafa El Sheikh, Ahmed Elsiddig<br />

Elder-Ratutokarua, Maria<br />

Elliott, Jane<br />

Espinosa Victoria, David<br />

Fendorf, Scott<br />

Ferreira, Gustavo<br />

Flanagan, Dennis<br />

Fraser, Tandra<br />

Gafurova, Laziza<br />

Osnabrück University, Germany.<br />

Paul Fixen, IPNI. Guelph Ontario, Canada.<br />

FAO, United Nations. (UK)<br />

University of Brasilia, Brazil.<br />

Massey University, New Zealand.<br />

FAO, United Nations (Italy).<br />

Bureau of <strong>Soil</strong>s and Water Management, Philippines<br />

Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Canada<br />

Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland.<br />

Ministry of Agriculture, Nigeria.<br />

Reading University, England, UK.<br />

Food Ind. Science Centre, New Zealand.<br />

EMBRAPA, Brazil<br />

Comision Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la<br />

Biodiversidad (CONABIO)<br />

NLRC, New Zealand.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Science Society Venezuela, Venezuela.<br />

EPA, USA<br />

Lincoln University, New Zealand.<br />

Min. Environment, Argentina.<br />

Colorado State University, USA (Italy)<br />

VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands (UK)<br />

Iowa state University, USA.<br />

Joint Research Centre, Italy (Sweden/Brazil)<br />

USDA, USA.<br />

Virginia Tech , USA.<br />

Universidade Federal de Lavras, Brazil.<br />

Ohio State University, USA<br />

INIDA, Cape Verde.<br />

Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Canada<br />

University of Khartoum, Sudan.<br />

Secretariat of the Pacific Community<br />

Saskatchwan University, Canada.<br />

Colegio de Postgraduados in Mexico<br />

Stanford University, USA.<br />

INIA, Urugay<br />

Purdue University, USA.<br />

GSBI, Colorado State University, USA (Can)<br />

National University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Authors and affiliations<br />

603


Gaistardo, Carlos Cruz<br />

Gardi, Ciro<br />

Gerasimova, Maria<br />

Govers, Gerard<br />

Grayson, Sue<br />

Griffiths, Robert<br />

Grundy, Mike<br />

Hakki Emrah, Erdogan<br />

Hamrouni, Heidi<br />

Hanly, James<br />

Harper, Richard<br />

Harrison, Rob<br />

Havlicek, Elena<br />

Hempel, Jon<br />

Henriquez, Carlos Roberto<br />

Hewitt, Allan<br />

Hiederer, Roland<br />

Hong, Suk Young<br />

House, Jo<br />

Huising, Jeroen<br />

Ibánez, Juan José<br />

Indraratne, Srimathie<br />

Jain, Atul<br />

Jefwa, Joyce<br />

Jung, Kangho<br />

Kadono, Atsunobu<br />

Kawahigashi, Masayuki<br />

Kelliher, Frank<br />

Kihara, Job<br />

Konyushkova, Maria<br />

Krasilnikov, Pavel<br />

Kuikman, Peter<br />

Kuziev, Ramazan<br />

Lai, Shawntine<br />

Lal, Rattan<br />

Lamers, John<br />

Lee, Dar-Yuan<br />

Lee, Seung Heon<br />

Lehmann, Johannes<br />

INEGI, Mexico<br />

University of Parma,Italy<br />

Moscow State University, Russian Federation.<br />

Catholic University Leuven, Belgium.<br />

University of British Columbia, Canada.<br />

Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, UK<br />

CSIRO, Australia<br />

Ministry Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Turkey<br />

Ministry of Agriculture, Tunisia<br />

Massey University, New Zealand.<br />

Murdoch University, Perth, Australia<br />

University of Washington<br />

Université de Neufchatel.(CH)<br />

NRCS, Lincoln, USA.<br />

University of Costa Rica, Costa Rica.<br />

Landcare Research, New Zealand.<br />

Joint Research Center - EU (Germany)<br />

National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA, South Korea<br />

University of Bristol, England, UK.<br />

TSBF-CIAT, Kenya (The Netherlands)<br />

Spanish National Research Council<br />

University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.<br />

Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA<br />

TSBF-CIAT, Kenya.<br />

National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA, South Korea<br />

Tottori University of Environmental Studies, Japan<br />

Tokyo Metropolitan University , Japan<br />

AgResearch, New Zealand.<br />

CIAT, Kenya.<br />

Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia<br />

Moscow State University, Russian Federation.<br />

Wageningen University, The Netherlands.<br />

National Institute <strong>Soil</strong> Science, Uzbekistan.<br />

MWH Americas Inc. Taiwan branch.<br />

Ohio State University, USA<br />

Bonn University, Germany.<br />

National Taiwan University, Taiwan<br />

Korea Rural Community Corp., Korea<br />

Cornell University, USA (Germany)<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Authors and affiliations<br />

604


Leys, John<br />

Lobb, David<br />

Ma, Lin<br />

Macias, Felipe<br />

Maina, Fredah<br />

Mamo, Tekalign<br />

Mantel, Stephan<br />

McDowell, Richard<br />

McKenzie, Neil<br />

Medvedev, Vitaliy<br />

Mendonça-Santos, de Lourdes Maria<br />

Miyazaki, Tsuyushi<br />

Montanarella, Luca<br />

Moore, John<br />

Morrison, John<br />

Mubarak, Abdelrahman Abdalla<br />

Mung'atu, Joseph<br />

Muniz, Olegario<br />

Nachtergaele, Freddy<br />

Nanzyo, Masami<br />

Ndiaye, Déthié<br />

Neall, Vince<br />

Norbu, Chencho<br />

Noroozi, Ali Akbar<br />

Obst, Carl<br />

Ogle, Stephen<br />

Ogunkunle, Ayoade<br />

Okoth, Peter<br />

Omutu, Christian<br />

Or, Dani<br />

Owens, Phil<br />

Pan, Genxing<br />

Panagos, Panos<br />

Parikh, Sanjai<br />

Pasos Mabel, Susana (†)<br />

Paterson, Garry<br />

Paustian, Keith<br />

Pennock, Dan<br />

Pietragalla, Vanina<br />

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Australia<br />

University of Manitoba, Canada<br />

Institute of Genetic and Developmental Biology, CAS, China<br />

Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.<br />

Agricultural Research Institute, Kenya.<br />

Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia.<br />

World <strong>Soil</strong> Information (ISRIC), the Netherlands<br />

AgResearch, New Zealand.<br />

CSIRO, Australia<br />

Ukrainan Agricultural Academy<br />

EMBRAPA, Brazil.<br />

University of Tokyo, Japan.<br />

Joint Research Center - EU (Italy)<br />

Colorado State University, USA<br />

University of Wollongong, Australia<br />

University of Khartoum, Sudan.<br />

Jomo Kenyatta University, Kenya.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Institute, Cuba.<br />

FAO, United Nations (Belgium)<br />

Tohoku University, Japan.<br />

CSE, Senegal<br />

Massey University, New Zealand.<br />

Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Buthan<br />

SCWM Institute, Iran.<br />

University of Melbourne, Australia<br />

Colorado State University, USA.<br />

University of Ibadan, Nigeria.<br />

TSBF-CIAT, Kenya.<br />

University of Nairobi, Kenya.<br />

ETH, Switzerland.<br />

Purdue University, USA.<br />

Nanjing Agricultural University, China.<br />

Joint Research Center - EU (Greece)<br />

University of California-Davis, USA.<br />

University Buenos Aires, Argentina.<br />

ISCW, Republic of South Africa.<br />

Colorado State University, USA.<br />

University of Saskatchewan, Canada.<br />

Min. Environment, Argentina.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Authors and affiliations<br />

605


Pla Sentis, Ildefonso<br />

Polizzotto, Matthew<br />

Pugh, Thomas<br />

Qureshi, Asad<br />

Reddy, Obi<br />

Reid, D. Keith<br />

Reinsch, Thomas<br />

Richter, Dan<br />

Rivera-Ferre, Marta<br />

Robinson, David<br />

Rodriguez Lado, Luis<br />

Roskruge, Rick<br />

Rumpel, Cornelia<br />

Rys, Gerald<br />

Schipper, Louis<br />

Schoknecht, Noel<br />

Seneviratne, Sonia<br />

Shahid, Shabbir<br />

Sheffield, Justin<br />

Sheppard, Steve<br />

Sidhu, Gurjant<br />

Sigbert, Huber<br />

Smith, Pete<br />

Smith, Scott<br />

Sobocká, Jaroslava<br />

Sönmez, Bülent<br />

Spicer, Anne<br />

Sposito, Garrison<br />

Stolt, Mark<br />

Suarez, Don<br />

Taboada, Miguel<br />

Takata, Yusuke<br />

Tarnocai, Charles<br />

Tassinari, Diego<br />

Tien, Tran Minh<br />

Toth, Tibor<br />

Trumbore, Susan<br />

Tuller, Markus<br />

Universitat de Lleida, Spain (Venezuela)<br />

North Carolina State, USA.<br />

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Meteorology and<br />

Climate Research/Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-<br />

IFU), Germany<br />

International Centre for Biosaline Agriculture, UAE.<br />

National Bureau of <strong>Soil</strong> Survey & Land Use Planning, India.<br />

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Canada<br />

World <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>, USDA, USA.<br />

Duke University, USA.<br />

Universita de Vic, Spain.<br />

Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, UK.<br />

Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.<br />

Massey University, New Zealand.<br />

INRA, France.<br />

Ministry Primary Industries, New Zealand<br />

The University of Waikato, New Zealand<br />

Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia<br />

ETH, Switzerland.<br />

International Centre for Biosaline Agriculture, UAE.<br />

Princeton University, USA (UK)<br />

ECOMatters Inc., Canada<br />

National Bureau of <strong>Soil</strong> Survey & Land Use Planning, India.<br />

Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Austria<br />

Aberdeen University, Scotland, UK.<br />

Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Canada<br />

<strong>Soil</strong> Science and Conservation Institute, Slovakia.<br />

Ministry of food agriculture and livestock, Turkey.<br />

Lincoln University, New Zealand<br />

Berkeley University, USA<br />

University of Rhode Island, USA.<br />

USDA Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, USA<br />

INTA, Argentina.<br />

National Institute for Agro-Environmental Science (NIAES), Japan<br />

Agriculture and Agri.Food, Canada.<br />

Universidade Federal de Lavras, Brazil.<br />

<strong>Soil</strong>s and Fertilizers Research Institute, Vietnam.<br />

RISSAC, Hungary.<br />

Max Planck Institute, Germany (USA)<br />

University of Arizona, USA.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Authors and affiliations<br />

606


Urquiaga Caballero, Segundo<br />

Urquiza Rodrigues, Nery<br />

Van Liedekerke, Marc<br />

Van Oost, Kristof<br />

Vargas, Rodrigo<br />

Vargas, Ronald<br />

Vela, Sebastian<br />

Vijarnsorn, Pisoot<br />

Vitaliy, Medvedev<br />

Vrscaj, Boris<br />

Wall, Diana<br />

Waswa, Boaz<br />

Watanabe, Kazuhiko<br />

Watmough, Shaun<br />

Webb, Mike<br />

Weerahewa, Jeevika<br />

West, Paul<br />

Wiese, Liesl<br />

Wilding, Larry<br />

Xu, Renkou<br />

Yagi, Kazuyuki<br />

Yan, Xiaoyuan<br />

Yemefack, Martin<br />

Yokoyama, Kazunari<br />

Zhang, Fusuo<br />

Zhang, Gan Lin<br />

Zhou, Dongme i<br />

Zobeck, Ted<br />

Embrapa Agrobiologica, Brazil.<br />

Ministry of Agriculture, Cuba.<br />

Joint Research Center, EU. (BEL)<br />

Catholic University Louvain, Belgium.<br />

CISECE, Mexico.<br />

FAO, United Nations (Bolivia)<br />

La Molina University, Peru.<br />

Chaipattana Foundation, Thailand.<br />

National Institute of <strong>Soil</strong> Science Ukraine.<br />

Agricultural Institute of Slovenia.<br />

Colorado State University, USA<br />

CIAT, Kenya.<br />

Hyogo Agricultural Institute, Japan.<br />

Trent University, Canada.<br />

CSIRO, Australia<br />

University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.<br />

University of Minesota, USA.<br />

ARC - ISCW, Republic of South Africa.<br />

Texas A&M University, USA.<br />

Institute of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, CAS, China<br />

National Institute for Agro-Environmental Science (NIAES), Japan<br />

Institute of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, CAS, China<br />

IRAT/IITA, Cameroon<br />

National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO),<br />

Japan<br />

China Agriculture University, China.<br />

Institute of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, China.<br />

Institute of <strong>Soil</strong> Science, CAS, China.<br />

USDA, USA.<br />

Status of the <strong>World’s</strong> <strong>Soil</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> | Main Report Authors and affiliations<br />

607

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!