the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Benchmarking soil multifunctionality
Abstract. Healthy soils provide multiple functions that importantly contribute to human wellbeing, including primary production, climate and water regulation, and supporting biodiversity. These functions can partially be combined and some functions also clearly trade-off: this motivates soil multifunctionality research. Society needs scientists to help assess which soils are best for which soil functions and to determine appropriate long-term management of any given soil for optimal function delivery. However, for both tasks science lacks coherent tools and in this paper I propose a way forward.
Critically, we lack a common measurement framework that pins soil functioning measurements on a common scale. Currently the field is divided with respect to the methods we use to measure and assess soil functioning and indicators thereof. Only three indicator variables (SOM, acidity, and available P) were commonly measured (>70 % of schemes) across 65 schemes that aim to measure soil health or quality, and no biological measure is implemented in more than 30 % of the 65 schemes. This status quo prevents us from systematically comparing across and within soils; we lack a soil multifunctionality benchmark.
We can address this limitations systematically by setting a common measurement system. To do this, I propose to use latent variable modelling based on a common set of functional measurements, to develop a common ‘IQ test for soils’. I treat soil functions as latent variables, because they are complex processes that cannot be measured directly, we can only detect drivers and consequences of these complex processes. Latent variable modelling has a long history in social, economic and psychometric fields, where it is known as factor analysis. Factor analysis aims to derive common descriptors – the factors – of hypothesized constructs by linking measurable response variables together on a common scale.
Here, I explain why such a new approach to soil multifunctionality and soil health is needed and how it can be operationalized. The framework developed here is only an initial proposal, the issue of soil multifunctionality is too complex and too important to be addressed in one go. It needs to be resolved iteratively by bands of scientist working intensively together. We need to bring our best science together, in a collaborative effort, to develop progressively more refined ways of sustainably managing one of humanity’s most precious resources: our soils.
- Preprint
(1248 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(664 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 Dec 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2851', Bob Douma, 21 Oct 2024
reply
Dear Dr. Wubs, dear Jasper,
Nice to read your paper in which you suggest to develop standardized metrics to characterize soil functioning. The approach developed by Daou & Shipley is very interesting and worth exploring further, in particular whether this concept of 'general soil fertility' works across the globe (for which you have made a nice attempt in the Netherlands) but also to what extent this idea can be extended to other soil functions. I am not expert on soils, but I am an expert on SEM/path modelling and my comments should be read with that in mind.
I have four major points to discuss:
1) Description of piecewiseSEM and SEM and d-sep test. Not all places this description is accurate and this could be improved.
2) Definitions used. You are using words like mechanisms, functions, services, processes and sometimes I got the impression that they are used interchangeably. I think that for quantifying soil functions/services definitions and termininology should be crystal clear.
3) The indicators in the measurement models are these really indicators of the latent variable, or are these causes (e.g. water holding capacity, repellency etc). And is the latent unambigious enough? For example "Climate regulation". This potentialy has many aspects and it is not entirely clear what you mean by this
4) To me soil health would be an interesting function to include. You could for example test this by growing four plant species on soil cores and inoculating those cores with various pathogens (either one by one, or a mixture of pathogens) and measure growth/survival of the plant species. You could extend this idea of using plants a phytometer even further by for example growing four species under standardized conditions, and measuring how different soils affect the decompsition rates under standardized conditions as a measure for carbon sequestration? And maybe you could design a good experiment along those lines for water holding capacity.
regards, Bob Douma
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2851-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', E.R. Jasper Wubs, 23 Oct 2024
reply
Dear Dr. Douma, dear Bob,
Thank you for your kind words and enthusiasm on this topic!
In response:
- Thanks for highlighting this, also in our private communication, let’s have a meeting to iron out these mistakes. I want to get this right!
- You are right, I will go through the paper during the inevitable revisions and harmonize the terms used. Good point!
- I have to think carefully about that, but you are right to bring it up. I will revise accordingly.
- My definition of soil health, the continued capacity of soils to deliver ecosystem services, seems to be broader then yours. But indeed, including disease suppression in the tests is an appealing prospect. I do mention it in the discussion as a possibility. We have to loop how it complements with the primary production, because insofar as it deals with plant pathogens, their effect should already be reflected in the phytometer performance. As such the pathogens are a (negative) driver of primary production. Even more interesting maybe is to implement a screen for human or zoonotic diseases?
Again, many thanks for your time and observations – this is highly appreciated and I will include them as much as possible in a revision of the paper.
Best wishes,
Jasper
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2851-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', E.R. Jasper Wubs, 23 Oct 2024
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2851', Julien Demenois, 18 Nov 2024
reply
Dear author,
I've read with great interest your Ms which offers stimulating thoughts on how to assess soil multifunctionnality and soil health. The topic is definitely timely and worth being considered for publication in SOIL. In particular, I've found interesting the concept approach of using LV.
I've however some major recommendations to improve it.
- I would recommend to give an example of application of this approach with LV. So far, only one example is given for soil fertility, but the different soils functions mentioned in the Ms should be illustrated similarly
- The practicability of the approach will definitely be a challenge especially in the global South. I would recommend to discuss this point more in depth
- In the description of the soil sampling strategy, I've questionned myself on how practically speaking homogeneous soil monoliths will be selected. Which criteria should be taken into account to define homogeneous area : for instance soil type x land-use x climate ?
- More references would be necessary in the outlook section where many questions are formulated but the scientific rationale behind each of them should be more justified
- A review of the existing approaches to benchmark soil multifunctionnality would be necessary especially because there are several Soil Mission projects on this topic : Soil Health Benchmarks project (https://soilhealthbenchmarks.eu/), SOLO project (https://soils4europe.eu/) just to give 2 examples
- Finally, I would recommend to shorten the Ms and avoid some digressions
I hope these comments will be helpful to revised the Ms.
Yours sincerely,
Julien Demenois
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2851-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2851', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Nov 2024
reply
This is an interesting paper that proposes using structural equation modelling to help define soil health. It makes a strong argument for the approach and introduces the reader to the methodology with clearly worked through illustrations of how the method might work. However, this where I had a problem with the paper, as it never went on to apply the proposed method and illustrate its application with some results and then discuss them. For this reason I cannot recommend the paper for publication in SOIL and suggest that it is rejected.
I have specific comments which are included to help the author improve the paper:
L39 I don’t follow the reasoning behind this statement ‘Furthermore, soil biodiversity importantly contributes to climate change adaptation, by storing precipitation in soils (Lal, 2020).
L64. What are we looking for in Creamer et al 2022 and Vogel et al 2018?
L129 I don’t think SOIL has boxes. Also I am not sure the photograph of Sewall Wright adds very much.
L178 I get the irony, but not really appropriate in a scientific paper
L244 I don’t agree. Combining methods does not always lead to more accurate results. Combining a poor method with a good one leads to less accurate results.
L247 A reference is needed for the IQ test for soils.
L254 . I would avoid literary references that not everybody will get.
L258 figure 2 needs a significantly bfuller caption explaining the different shapes and colours
L265 What does the * refer to - presumably the figure caption. Incorporate into the caption rather than adding notes like this.
I stopped my detail review at this point as I realised the paper was never going to deliver any results and thus I would recommend a rejection.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2851-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
307 | 59 | 65 | 431 | 10 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 307
- PDF: 59
- XML: 65
- Total: 431
- Supplement: 10
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1