Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1255
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1255
13 Mar 2026
 | 13 Mar 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for SOIL (SOIL).

Beyond the laboratory: performance and agreement of rapid methodologies for soil health assessment

Lur Epelde, Mikel Anza, Jasmin Fetzer, Katy Jo Stanton, Josiah Judson, and Nerea Mandaluniz

Abstract. Soil health assessment increasingly relies on biological indicators because of their sensitivity and direct links to ecosystem functioning. However, conventional laboratory methods are time-consuming, require specialized infrastructure, and are often incompatible with rapid decision-making in applied contexts. Several rapid or field-deployable tools have recently been developed to address this limitation, but their comparability with standard laboratory methods remains insufficiently evaluated. Here, we compared four rapid approaches with their corresponding laboratory reference methods in a long-term grassland experiment: aggregate stability (SLAKES), soil respiration (portable CO2 analyzer), microbial biomass carbon and fungal-to-bacterial ratio (microBIOMETER®), and enzyme activities (Soil Enzymatic Activity Reader, SEAR). Agreement between methods was assessed using Spearman correlations, redundancy analyses and Procrustes analysis. Aggregate stability showed strong correspondence between rapid and laboratory measurements (R = 0.64), whereas soil respiration exhibited weak agreement, likely reflecting that in situ and laboratory approaches capture different aspects of respiratory activity. Microbial biomass carbon displayed moderate comparability between methods (R = 0.51), while fungal-to-bacterial ratios did not. Enzyme activities measured with SEAR were generally consistent with laboratory assays. Multivariate analyses indicated that overall, rapid methods captured ecological patterns similar to those revealed by laboratory protocols. These findings support the use of selected rapid tools as complementary or alternative options when laboratory facilities are unavailable or timely soil health information is required to inform management decisions.

Competing interests: Author JF was employed by Digit Soil.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Lur Epelde, Mikel Anza, Jasmin Fetzer, Katy Jo Stanton, Josiah Judson, and Nerea Mandaluniz

Status: open (until 24 Apr 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Lur Epelde, Mikel Anza, Jasmin Fetzer, Katy Jo Stanton, Josiah Judson, and Nerea Mandaluniz
Lur Epelde, Mikel Anza, Jasmin Fetzer, Katy Jo Stanton, Josiah Judson, and Nerea Mandaluniz
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 13 Mar 2026
Download
Short summary
Soil health is often assessed using laboratory tests that are slow and require specialized equipment. In a long-term grassland experiment, we evaluated whether rapid tools to measure soil structure, biological activity and microbial biomass provide comparable information to standard laboratory analyses. Some tools closely matched laboratory results, while others likely reflected different aspects of soil functioning. Overall, rapid methods captured similar ecological patterns.
Share