Assessment of promising agricultural management practices

1 Assessment of promising agricultural management practices 1 Lúcia Barão a,b,⁎, Abdallah Alaoui c, Carla Ferreira d, Gottlieb Basch b, Gudrun Schwilch c, 2 Violette Geissen e, Wijnand Sukkel f, Julie Lemesle g, Fuensanta Garcia-Orenes h, 3 Alicia Morugán-Coronado h, Jorge Mataix-Solera h, Costas Kosmas i, Matjaž Glavan j, 4 Marina Pintar j, Brigitta Tóth k,l, Tamás Hermann l, Olga Petruta Vizitiu m, Jerzy Lipiec n, 5 Endla Reintam o, Minggang Xu p, Jiaying Di p, Hongzhu Fan q, Fei Wang r 6 7 a Center for Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Changes (cE3c), University of Lisbon, Campo Grande, 17498 016 Lisbon, Portugal 9 b Institute of Mediterranean Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (ICAAM), University of Évora, Núcleo da 10 Mitra Apartado, 94 7006-554 Évora, Portugal 11 c Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, 3012 Bern, Switzerland 12 d Research Centre for Natural Resources, Environment and Society (CERNAS), College of Agriculture, 13 Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal 14 e Department of Environmental Sciences, Soil Physics and Land Management, University ofWageningen, the 15 Netherlands 16 f Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen Plant Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, 17 Netherlands 18 g Gaec de la Branchette (GB), France 19 h Department of Agrochemistry and Environment, Miguel Hernández University, Spain 20 i Agricultural University Athens (AUA), Greece 21 j University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 22 k Institute for Soil Sciences and Agricultural Chemistry, Centre for Agricultural Research, Hungarian Academy 23 of Sciences, Herman Ottó út. 15., H-1022 Budapest, Hungary 24 l University of Pannonia, Georgikon Faculty, Deparrtment of Soil Science and Crop Production, Deák F. u. 16., 25 H-8360 Keszthely, Hungary 26 m National Research and Development Institute for Soil Science, Agrochemistry and Environmental Protection 27 (ICPA), Romania 28 n Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Doświadczalna 4, 20-290 Lublin, Poland 29 o Estonian University of Life Sciences, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonia 30 p Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (IARRP, 31 CAAS), China 32 q Soil and Fertilizer Institute of the Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences (SFI), China 33 r Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry ofWater Resources 34 (ISWC), China 35 36 Barão, L., Alaoui, A., Ferreira, C. Et al. 2019. Assessment of promising agricultural management 37 practices. Science of the Total Environment 649, 610-619. 38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.257 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 2 Highlights 1 • Promising agricultural management practices (AMP) adopted by farmers improve soil quality. 2 • iSQAPER project aims to develop an app to advise farmers on selecting the best AMPs. 3 • Some of the most promising AMP was Crop rotation and Manuring & Composting. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 3 Graphical Abstract 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 4 1. Introduction 1 2 The growing world population poses a major challenge to global agricultural food and feed production (United 3 Nations, 2015). So far, agriculture was able to cope with the increasing demand, but changes in diets food wastage 4 and the challenge of feed more than 9 billion people by 2050 rises the pressure on agriculture sector. Increasing 5 agricultural outputs can be reached either through more land area dedicated to agriculture (FAO, 2011) or through 6 productivity increases (Tilman et al., 2011). Both solutions cause an overall set of impacts such as: a) mining and 7 disruption of nutrient resources, such as the nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) cycles, through increasing use of 8 fertilizers (Gruber and Galloway, 2008; Obersteiner et al., 2013), and decrease of soil organic matter (SOM); b) 9 loss of soil structure (Tiessen et al., 1994) and increasing susceptibility to erosion, namely due to high 10 mechanization; c) decrease in soil biodiversity, though the conversion of natural habitats and loss of endogenous 11 flora and fauna (Chapin et al., 2000; Newbold et al., 2015); d) decrease of water quality (surface and groundwater), 12 through sediment and nutrients exports by runoff and leachate, as well as consumption of fresh and groundwater 13 for irrigation (Scanlon et al., 2007); e) increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, through livestock, consumption 14 of fossil fuels and adoption of management practices that induce greenhouse gas emissions from biological soil 15 processes (Robertson, 2000). Whether in developed or developing regions such as Europe and China, agricultural 16 intensification based on conventional approaches has resulted in severe soil degradation (Lal, 2015; Ramankutty 17 and Foley, 1999) and the consequent failure of agricultural soils to deliver the more than ever required ecosystem 18 services, comprising more than the provision of food, feed, fibre and fuel. Indeed, soil is currently under several 19 threats that compromise its functions and the ecosystem services potential. Some examples of threats affecting 20 soil are erosion, soil organic matter (SOM) decline, compaction or biodiversity loss (Stolte et al., 2016). These 21 threats interfere and compromise the organic matter level in soil, the water and air circulation, the diversity of 22 micro and macro fauna among others. Therefore agricultural management practices that halter ongoing soil 23 degradation, promote sustainable land management capable to produce more from less, and to change the 24 conventional agricultural paradigm are required (Hurni et al., 2015; Tilman et al., 2002; Wall et al., 2015). These 25 promising agricultural management practices are considered here as those maintaining healthy soils, or have been 26 improving the soil quality status markedly (Schwilch et al., 2011). The focus on the soil as a resource and the need 27 to use it in a sustainable way was patent in the Soil Thematic Strategy developed by the European Commission in 28 2012. The four pillars of the Strategy, namely awareness raising, research, integration, and legislation, intend to 29 preserve the soil functions while also restore already degraded soils. Therefore the consolidation of harmonized 30 soil monitoring and soil quality indicators is necessary to better compare the soil performance along different 31 countries (European Commission, 2012). Integrated in this context, the H2020 iSQAPER research project – 32 Interactive Soil Quality Assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural Productivity and Environmental 33 Resilience – aims to develop a Soil Quality app (SQAPP) to link agricultural management practices (AMP) to soil 34 quality indicators. This easy-friendly tool will provide a direct and convenient way to advise farmers and other 35 stakeholders regarding the best management practices to be adopted in specific conditions to improve soil quality. 36 Soil quality is a difficult concept to establish, and several indicators/parameters have been considered by different 37 authors during the last decades (Bünemann et al., 2018). Thus, iSQAPER project includes the development of a 38 soil quality index to be used by the app. However, there is also an urgent need to link the impact of different 39 agricultural management practices to the soil quality impacts, in order to ensure both soil protection and the 40 sustainability of the agriculture sector. Some promising management practices have been suggested and adopted 41 to prevent soil loss, the decrease of organic matter or soil salinization all over the world. These practices, including 42 no-tillage, cover crops or soil cover, have been randomly adopted by farmers once they are faced with soil 43 degradation problems in their fields. However which practices are already in used by farmers and where are they 44 mostly adopted remains unclear. This information is important for policy makers, farmer's management advisers 45 and scientists actively engaged in developing and promoting agricultural management practices to correctly 46 address the local soil problems. iSQAPER project has 25 partners, of which 14 are participating as study site 47 areas, located in a variety of pedoclimatic areas from Europe and China, and object of agriculture research for 48 long time. This study, developed under iSQAPER project, aims to (i) map the distribution of promising AMP's 49 (pre-selected from a list developed by the WOCAT consortium) along the study site areas of Europe and China; 50 and ii) identify the most severe soil threats in each study site area. Europe and China were selected for this 51 assessment due to the agriculture intensification experienced in the last 50 years and the farmers' need to adopt 52 new practices to overcome the current problems driven by intensive agriculture practices. This assessment will 53 provide an overview on the best promising practices already in use and their link to soil threats as an attempt to 54 address soil quality improvement in future strategies. 55 56 57 58 59 60 5 2. Materials and Methods 1 2 In order to understand which promising management practices have been adopted by farmers in Europe and 3 China, 14 study site areas (SSA) were considered located in different pedoclimatic regions and used in different 4 farming systems. For each SSA, farmers using promising agricultural practices (AMP's) were identified through 5 the process described below. 6 7 2.1. Study site areas (SSA) 8 9 The SSA include 10 sites located in Europe and 4 sites in China (Fig. 1). These SSAs consist in large agricultural 10 research areas (ranging from 8 to 8000 km2). This long term investigation assures (i) adequate description of 11 geomorphologic, hydrological and climatic conditions; (ii) documented and studied typical agricultural 12 management activities; and (iii) frequent soil monitoring activities, as well as research activities such as testing 13 of management activities and innovation actions which are relevant to improve soil quality, and involve important 14 local stakeholders in the agriculture paradigm. In Europe, the 10 study areas covered 6 out of the 8 climatic zones 15 (Tóth et al., 2013): Boreal to sub-Boreal, Northern sub-Continental, Southern Sub-Continental, Atlantic, 16 Mediterranean Temperate and Mediterranean semi-arid. In China, climate variability is higher than in Europe, but 17 only 3 out of 10 climatic areas (Wu et al., 2010) were investigated: Central Tropical Asia, Warm Temperate and 18 Middle Temperate zone (Fig. 1). The farming systems classification used in this study was adapted from CORINE 19 land cover assessment (European Environment Agency, 1994). It considers three classifications: Arable Land 20 (including non irrigated and permanently irrigated arable lands, growing cereals, legumes, oil crops, fodder crops, 21 root crops, flowers, fruits and vegetables and also fallow); Permanent Crops (including vineyards, fruit trees and 22 berry plantations and oil groves) and; Pastures (comprising extensive and intensive pastures). In a first step, there 23 was an identification of the most widely used farming systemin each SSA, using national databases. Based on this 24 preliminary survey, interviews to local farmers in the SSAs took place to further identify farms, from the most 25 representative local farming systems, where promising AMP's were being used. These inquires included the 26 identification of all farmers and their farms/plots within the SSA and the listing of: 1) farming systems used; 2) 27 soil type and 3) the type of management performed in the land. The promising AMP's considered for this 28 identification were based on a preliminary list from a literature review and a categorization list of Sustainable 29 Land Management practices (Schwilch et al., 2011) developed by the WOCAT consortium (www.wocat.net). The 30 preselected 18 promising AMP's identified along the pedoclimatic and farming systems gradients of the SSAs are 31 shown in Table 1, as well as their general description and expected beneficial impacts associated with their use. 32 The promising AMPs list compiled in Table 1 was also divided into 5 classes of agriculture management practices, 33 focused on: 1) soil; 2) nutrient; 3) pest; 4) water and 5) crop and land use change. 34 35 2.2. Selection of farms/plots 36 37 Each project partner with a Case Study Site selected 12 farms/plots in their SSA considering: 1) the two main 38 representative farming systems of the area; 2) the two main representative soil types of the region and; 3) at least 39 three different promising AMP's previously identified (Table 1). In this context, we consider the plot/farm as a 40 uniform land where a certain soil type is present and where the responsible farmer uses a certain AMP under a 41 certain farming system As so, a maximum of 12 representative plots/farms were identified per project partner 42 using the most promising AMPs. 43 44 2.3. Main soil threats in the SSAs 45 46 In order to identify the most relevant soil threats affecting the SSA, each Case Study Site project partner ranked 47 the mains soil threats. The ranking was produced by the experienced researchers working on sustainable 48 agriculture in the SSA (and research team from iSQAPER project) after informal interviews with the farmers 49 (total of 98) about the plots and soil threats where the most promising practices were identified. After this, each 50 research team responsible for the Study Site Area translated their general perception for the identified soil threats 51 into a ranking going from 1 to 8 (the number of soil threats considered), where 1 represents the most severe and 52 8 the least severe soil threat. This ranking is therefore a result from each research team conclusions based on the 53 farmers reality identified during the plots selection. The soil threats included erosion, soil organic matter (SOM) 54 decline, nitrogen leaching, soil-borne pests and diseases, compaction, poor water holding capacity, salinization 55 and poor structure. This list was previously established during a workshop of the iSQAPER project, organized in 56 Frick (Switzerland) in 2015, in order to establish which soil threats should be mostly considered in the agricultural 57 context of Europe and China (ISQAPER, 2016). 58 59 60 6 3. Results 1 2 3 3.1. Farms/plots identified in SSAs of Europe and China 4 5 The intended variability in the identification of plots/farms per SSA, considering different farming systems and 6 soil types, was not always possible along the pedoclimatic regions. Thus, a total of 138 plots/ farms with promising 7 AMP's were identified (112 in Europe and 26 in China) along the different SSAs and included in this study (Table 8 2). The number of plots/farms with promising AMP's identified in the SSAs were mostly from Arable land farming 9 systems (63% in Europe and 92% in China), followed by Permanent crops (23% in Europe and 4% in China) and 10 Pastures (14% in Europe and 4% in China). In Europe, the majority of soils from the farms/plots identified were 11 Cambisols (29%), Fluvisols (17%) and Luvisols (15%), while in China, Anthrosols were the most identified within 12 the farms/plots identified (27%), followed by Cacilsols (23%) and Regosols (15%). The most common promising 13 AMP's in the identified plot/farms of Europe were Crop rotation (15%), Manuring & Composting (15%) and Min14 till (14%), while in ChinawereManuring & Composting (18%), Residue maintenance (18%) and Integrated pest 15 management and diseases (12%). However, it is important to refer that while some of the plots/ farms identified 16 only one promising AMP currently used by the farmer (71%), in some other SSAs farmers were using a 17 combination of different AMP's at the same time (29%). 18 19 3.2. Variability of promising AMP's along the pedoclimatic gradient 20 21 In Europe, the majority of promising AMPs identified in plots/farms selected per SSAs were linked to soil 22 management (representing 40% to 55%), with the exception of the Northern Sub-continental area where the soil 23 management practices used were less representative (12%). The class of nutrient management AMPs was also 24 consistently the second most identified in all climatic areas of Europe (14%–33%), except for the same Northern 25 Sub-continental where it was dominant (35%). The pest management AMPs is the third most identified (14–29%) 26 in Europe, while water management AMPs were only identified in the Mediterranean temperate, Northern and 27 Southern Sub-Continental. The crop management AMPs were identified in these three climatic regions and also 28 in the Boreal to Sub-Boreal area, but always in small percentages 29 (2%–12%) (Fig. 2). In China, however, the distribution of identified AMPs among the climatic regions was more 30 variable. The Cold semi-arid climatic zone was the only area where the same trend observed in Europe was present 31 with the vast majority of AMPs linked to soil management (67%). However, nutrient management AMPs were 32 absent from this case study area while pest management and crop management share the same importance (17%). 33 In Central tropical Asia region, the most present AMPs were instead the ones related to nutrient management 34 (35%), although every other class was represented. Finally, with a completely different trend, the AMPs identified 35 in the region of Middle Temperate zone were predominantly linked to soil management (43%) followed by 36 nutrient management (29%) and water management (29%) (Fig. 2). In the SSAs, both European and Chinese 37 farmers use promising AMP's from the soil management category, followed by nutrient and pest management. 38 However, in Europe this tendency is recorded in all climatic areas in the same proportion. It is also clear that water 39 management practices are not so much adopted by farmers in the study areas considered here. Its representation 40 is rather low (4 to7%), although its absence in regions such as the Mediterranean Semi-arid is due to the limitation 41 of plots/farms identified within this climatic region. 42 43 44 3.3. Soil threats in SSA 45 46 In the Atlantic region, main soil threats are nitrogen leaching, soil-borne pests and diseases and compaction. In 47 the Mediterranean temperate the main problems are erosion, SOM decline, compaction, poor structure and 48 salinization. In the Southern sub-continental region, however, the main threats identified are nitrogen leaching 49 and poor water holding capacity, as well as erosion and SOM decline. In the Northern sub-continental region the 50 main threats focus on poor water holding capacity, poor structure, compaction, SOM decline and salinization. 51 Finally, the Boreal to Sub-Boreal region reported problems with SOM decline, compaction and poor soil structure 52 (Table 3). In China, given the limited number of SSAs, it is difficult to observe a consistency within the climatic 53 regions. The results show that in the region of Central Asia Tropical the two SSAs registered problems mainly 54 concerning erosion, SOM decline and poor soil structure. Additionally, Qiyang area also shows problems with 55 compaction and soil-borne pests and diseases while Suining area shows also problems with poor water holding 56 capacity. The Warm temperate region, represented by Zhifanggou study site shows also high incidence of the 57 problems of erosion, SOM decline and poor soil structure while the Middle temperate zone, represented by 58 Gongzhuling is more affected by SOM decline (Table 3). 59 60 7 4. Discussion 1 2 4.1. The need for soil protection and higher soil organic matter levels 3 4 5 Results from this study refer to a previously summarized list of promising AMP's (Table 1) identified along 6 specific SSAs and may not be representative to other areas of Europe and China. However, since these SSAs are 7 relevant areas for land management and are object of research for quite some time, the study of the selected 8 promising AMPs being used in plots/farms are an important referential to understand farmers choices for using 9 certain management practices. Farmer's choices revealed particular interest in adopting promising AMP's 10 concerning soil and nutrient management practices (Fig. 2). This concern was transversal from Europe to China, 11 although different promising AMP's where reported locally. In Europe, the most identified promising AMP's 12 denoted farmer's 13 preoccupation with soil organic matter losses and soil erosion and aimed at soil protection, such as evidenced by 14 the large adoption of minimum tillage practice (Hernanz et al., 2002; López-Bellido et al., 1997). Also, the high 15 implementation of manuring & composting reinforces the farmers' need to increase soil organic levels in Europe 16 and the focus on recycling secondary products from farms into a greener management approach (Damodar Reddy 17 et al., 2000). The high number of farmers using crop rotation techniques denotes preoccupation with soil protection 18 (Blackshaw et al., 2001)and the recognition that in order to have high yields it is necessary to have a healthy soil 19 provided with multiple nutrients (De Varennes et al., 2007). In fact, growing crops in rotation systems, opposing 20 to mono-cultures, ensures nutrient recycling within soil and sustains the micro and macrofauna which are 21 determinant to have assure healthier crops which can resist easier to diseases (Lbpez-Fando and Bello, 1995; 22 Tiemann et al., 2015). In China residue maintenance by farmers is another management practice that highlights 23 farmers need to protect the soil against erosion, while also using the residues to feed the soil with organic matter 24 and nutrients. Soil loss and soil organic matter decrease are serious problems affecting both Europe and China, 25 due to the intense agricultural activities. The fact that soil is being lost faster than it can be replaced (Panagos et 26 al., 2015a) and that organic matter, is decreasing (Lugato et al., 2016) affects soil quality and consequently the 27 arable soil capacity to produce the required amount of crops. Organic matter provides a source of nutrients to the 28 soil and sustains the food web for the micro fauna, while also promoting water retention (Allison, 1973). 29 30 31 4.2. Future concerns about the adoption of promising AMP's 32 33 The perception of the interviewed farmers and researchers in the SSA's, regarding to soil threats, are generally in 34 line with the distribution of the soil threats along Europe reported in previous studies (Orgiazzi et al., 2016; 35 Panagos et al., 2015b; Tóth et al., 2008). However, while some of the threats seem to concentrate in specific 36 regions, others are reported as severe or moderate in almost all of the SSAs in this study. The highlighted concern 37 of famers with soil protection against erosion and the loss of organic matter discussed before is therefore blurred 38 by the fact that other threats such as salinization, nitrogen leaching or poor water holding capacity, are identified 39 without proper management practices. It is important to consider the role that physical soil parameters (e.g. texture 40 and pH) or geographical constrains (e.g. slope) play on the type of soil threat occurring in different regions. 41 Furthermore, these parameters influence the type of management practices adopted by the farmers to overcome 42 the situation. The information provided in this study can be used as a basis for future decisions concerning the 43 support of different AMP's to prevent soil degradation and to enhance soil quality. Policymakers should be aware 44 that ongoing threats are menacing soil quality, and therefore agricultural productivity along Europe and China. 45 The adoption of AMP's to deal with soil threats is not properly implemented. However, this study also shows the 46 growing awareness and concern that farmers have towards erosion and soil organic matter loss, which can be even 47 more supported by policy strategies in the future. Additionally, results can also be used to promote and support 48 the management practices which can ameliorate soil threats that are not successfully addressed. 49 50 51 5. Conclusion 52 53 54 The present study identified the currently used promising AMPs (previously selected from a list of 18 AMPs) by 55 farmers from 14 SSAs in Europe and China, along different pedo-climatic regions. The most adopted promising 56 AMPs in the SSAs are focused on: a) soil management, b) nutrient management, and c) pest management. 57 Promising AMPs concerning water and crop management & land use were less common in the investigated study 58 areas. Soil threats such as erosion and SOM decline were listed as the most severe in SSAs from the same climatic 59 regions namely in the Mediterranean, while others such as soil compaction were present in all SSAs. The study 60 highlights the concern of farmers with soil protection and soil organic matter loss, through the adoption of specific 61 8 AMP's that intend to decrease the annual soil loss and promote the accumulation of soil organic matter. These 1 practices should be supported in the future and more attention should be given to other AMP's that actively target 2 damages from other soil threats such as salinization and nitrogen leaching. Knowledge on main soil threats and 3 AMPs easy to be accepted and implemented by farmers should be considered in future policy strategies, either to 4 support farmers already adopting promising AMP's to promote soil quality and also to establish priorities for 5 future incentives. Special attention is therefore given to the analysis of the impacts of the selected AMPs on soil 6 quality in the selected plots/farms that we would like to publish in an oncoming manuscript. 7 8 9 Acknowledgements 10 11 L. Barão and C. Ferreira were supported by the grants SFRH/BPD/115681/2016 and SFRH/BPD/120093/2016, 12 respectively, from the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia. iSQAPER is funded by the European 13 Union's Horizon 2020 Programme for research & innovation under grant agreement no 635750, the Chinese 14 Ministry of Science and Technology (grant nr:2016YFE011270), the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant 15 nr:16146KYSB20150001) and the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation. Contract: 16 15.0170-1. 17 18 19 List of Figures and Tables 20 21 Figure 1 - Study Site Areas location in Europe and China and distinct climatic zones. SE Spain includes plots 22 located in the provinces of Valencia, Alicante and Murcia. 23 Figure 2 - Promising AMPs distribution categories in Europe and China grouped by climatic region. 24 25 Table 1 - Promising AMPs considered, description, expected impacts/ecological benefits and the corresponding 26 main soil threat targeted by its use (WOCAT, (Schwilch et al., 2011)). 27 Table 2 - Plots/farms identified in each SSA and respective climatic zones, soil type and AMP's. The meaning of 28 the numbers in AMP column is presented in Table 1. SE Spain includes plots located in the provinces of Valencia, 29 Alicante and Murcia. 30 Table 3 - Soil threats severity grouped by climatic zone in Europe (a - top) and China (b - bottom), ranked from 31 1 (highest) to 8 (lowest). SE Spain includes plots located in the region of Valencia, Alicante and Murcia. The 32 highest severity scores (1, 2 and 3) are highlighted in bold. 33 34 35 References 36 37 Allison, F., 1973. Soil Organic Matter and Its Role in Crop Production. Blackshaw, R.E., Larney, F.J., Lindwall, C.W.,Watson, 38 P.R., Derksen, D.a., 2001. Tillage intensity and crop rotation affect weed community dynamics in a winter wheat cropping 39 system. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81, 805–813. 40 Bünemann, E.K, Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R.E, De Deyn, G., 2018. Soil quality – a critical review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41 120, 105–125. 42 Chapin, F.S., Zavaleta, E.S., Eviner, V.T., Naylor, R.L., Vitousek, P.M., Reynolds, H.L., Hooper, D.U., Lavorel, S., Sala, 43 O.E., Hobbie, S.E., Mack, M.C., Díaz, S., 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405, 234–242. 44 Damodar Reddy, D., Subba Rao, A., Rupa, T.R., 2000. Effects of continuous use of cattle manureand fertilizer phosphorus on 45 crop yields and soil organic phosphorus in a vertisol. Bioresour. Technol. 75, 113–118. 46 De Varennes, A., Torres, M.O., Cunha-Queda, C., Goss, M.J., Carranca, C., 2007. Nitrogen conservation in soil and crop 47 residues as affected by crop rotation and soil disturbance under Mediterranean conditions. Biol. Fertil. Soils 44, 49–58. 48 European Commission, 2012. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 49 and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The Implementation of the Soil Thematic Strategy and Ongoing 50 Activities,Com (2012) 46 Final. 51 European Environment Agency, 1994. CORINE Land Cover. 52 FAO, 2011. The State of the World's Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture - Managing Systems at Risk. 53 Gruber, N., Galloway, J.N., 2008. An earth-system perspective of the global nitrogen cycle. Nature 451, 293–296. 54 Hernanz, J.L., López, R., Navarrete, L., Sánchez-Girón, V., 2002. Long-term effects of tillage systems and rotations on soil 55 structural stability and organic carbon stratification in semiarid Central Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 66, 129–141. 56 Hurni, H., Giger,M., Liniger, H.,Mekdaschi Studer, R., Messerli, P., Portner, B., Schwilch, G., Wolfgramm, B., Breu, T., 2015. 57 Soils, agriculture and food security: the interplay between ecosystem functioning and human well-being. Curr. Opin. 58 Environ. Sustain. 15, 25–34. 59 ISQAPER, 2016. iSQAPER - Periodic Report Period 1. 60 Lal, R., 2015. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability 7, 5875–5895. 61 9 Lbpez-Fando, C., Bello, A., 1995. Variability in soil nematode populations due to tillage and crop rotation in semi-arid 1 Mediterranean agrosystems. Soil Tillage Res. 36, 59–72. 2 López-Bellido, L., López-Garrido, F.J.J., Fuentes, M., Castillo, J.E.E., Fernández, E.J., LpezBellido, L., López-Garrido, 3 F.J.J., Fuentes, M., Castillo, J.E.E., Fernandez, E.J., 1997. Influence of tillage, crop rotation and nitrogen fertilization on 4 soil organic matter and nitrogen under rain-fed Mediterranean conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 43, 277–293. 5 Lugato, E., Paustian, K., Panagos, P., Jones, A., Borrelli, P., 2016. Quantifying the erosion effect on current carbon budget of 6 European agricultural soils at high spatial resolution. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 1976–1984. 7 Newbold, T., Hudson, L.N., Hill, S.L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. a, Börger, L., Bennett, D.J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., 8 Day, J., De Palma, A., Dıáz, S., Echeverria-Londoño, S., Edgar, M.J., Feldman, A., Garon, M., Harrison, M.L.K., 9 Alhusseini, T., Ingram, D.J., Itescu, Y., Kattge, J., Kemp, V., Kirkpatrick, L., Kleyer, M., Laginha Pinto Correia, D., 10 Martin, C.D., Meiri, S., Novosolov, M., Pan, Y., Phillips, H.R.P., Purves, D.W., Robinson, A., Simpson, J., Tuck, S.L., 11 Weiher, E., White, H.J., Ewers, R.M., Mace, G.M.,Scharlemann, J.P., Purvis, A., 2015. Global effects of land use on local 12 terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45. 13 Obersteiner, M., Peñuelas, J., Ciais, P., van der Velde, M., Janssens, I.a., 2013. The phosphorus trilemma. Nat. Geosci. 6, 897– 14 898. 15 Orgiazzi, A., Panagos, P., Yigini, Y., Dunbar, M.B., Gardi, C., Montanarella, L., Ballabio, C., 2016. A knowledge-based 16 approach to estimating themagnitude and spatial patterns of potential threats to soil biodiversity. Sci. Total Environ. 545– 17 546, 11–20. 18 Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., Alewell, C., Lugato, E., Montanarella, L., 2015a. Estimating the soil erosion cover19 management factor at the European scale. Land Use Policy 48, 38–50. 20 Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Poesen, J., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Meusburger, K., Montanarella, L., Alewell, C., 2015b. The new 21 assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environ. Sci. Pol. 54, 438–447. 22 Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 1999. Estimating historical changes in global land cover: croplands from 1700 to 1992. Glob. 23 Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 997–1027. 24 Robertson, G.P., 2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of 25 the atmosphere. Science 289, 1922–1925. 26 Scanlon, B.R., Jolly, I., Sophocleous, M., Zhang, L., 2007. Global impacts of conversions from natural to agricultural 27 ecosystems onwater resources: quantity versus quality. Water Resour. Res. 43. 28 Schwilch, G., Bestelmeyer, B., Bunning, S., Critchley,W., Herrick, J., Kellner, K., Liniger, H.p., Nachtergaele, F., Ritsema, 29 C.j., Schuster, B., Tabo, R., van Lynden, G., Winslow, M., 2011. Experiences in monitoring and assessment of sustainable 30 land management. Land Degrad. Dev. 22, 214–225. 31 Stolte, J., Tesfai, M., Øygarden, L., Kværnø, S., Keizer, J., Verheijen, F., Panagos, P., Hessel, R., 2016. Soil Threats in Europe: 32 Status, Methods, Drivers and Effects on Ecosystem Services. 33 Tiemann, L.K., Grandy, A.S., Atkinson, E.E., Marin-Spiotta, E., McDaniel, M.D., 2015. Crop rotational diversity enhances 34 belowground communities and functions in an agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 18, 761–771. 35 Tiessen, H., Cuevas, E., Chacon, P., 1994. The role of soil organic matter in sustaining soil fertility. Lett. Nat. 371, 783–785. 36 Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production 37 practices. Nature 418, 671–677. 38 Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., Befort, B.L., 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. 39 Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 20260–20264. 40 Tóth, G., Montanarella, L., Rusco, E., 2008. Threats to soil quality in Europe. Threats to Soil Quality in Europe SE - EUR – 41 Scientific and Technical Research Series. 42 Tóth, G., Gardi, C., Bódis, K., Ivits, É., Aksoy, E., Jones, A., Jeffrey, S., Petursdottir, T., 43 Montanarella, L., 2013. Continental-scale assessment of provisioning soil functions in Europe. Ecol. Process. 2, 32. 44 United Nations, 2015. World Population Prospects - The 2015 Revision. Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 45 Population Division. 46 Wall, D.H., Nielsen, U.N., Six, J., 2015. Perspective soil biodiversity and human health. Nature 528, 69–76. 47 Wu, S.H., Sun, H.T., Teng, Y.C., Rejmánek, M., Chaw, S.M., Yang, A.Y.A., Hsieh, C.F., 2010. Patterns of plant invasions in 48 China: taxonomic, biogeographic, climatic approaches and anthropogenic effects. Biol. Invasions 12, 2179–2206 49 50 16 Table 3 1 2 3 a) Atlantic Mediterranean Temperate Southern SubContinental Northern SubContinental Boreal SOIL THREAT 1. De Peel 2. Argentré du Plessis 3. Certima 4. SE Spain 5. Crete 6. Ljubljana 7. Zala 8. Braila County 9. Trzebieszów 10. Tartumaa Erosion 8 - 2 3 1 - 1 - 8 5 SOM decline 4 - 2 1 4 6 2 3 8 1 Compaction 2 4 1 2 6 5 3 4 7 2 Poor structure - - 6 2 5 7 5 4 4 3 Poor water holding capacity 5 - 8 5 7 2 - 5 3 6 N. leaching 1 - 8 - 5 1 6 6 7 4 Soil-borne pest and diseases 2 4 - 3 4 - 7 - 8 7 Salinization - - 8 1 3 - - 3 - - 4 5 b) Central Asia Tropical Warm Temperate Middle Temperate SOIL THREAT 11. Qiyang 12. Suining 13. Zhifanggou 14. Gongzhuling Erosion 2 2 1 - SOM decline 3 4 3 3 Compaction 3 - - 4 Poor structure 5 3 4 5 Poor water holding capacity 6 3 - 7 N. leaching 4 6 - 7 Soil-borne pest and diseases 4 6 - 5 Salinization - - - - 6