Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-26T05:16:38.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The need for a soil quality index: Local and regional perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

D. Granatstein  and
D.F. Bezdicek
D. Granatstein
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agriculture Project Manager, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420.
D.F. Bezdicek
Affiliation:
Professor of Soils, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420.
Get access

Abstract

Our knowledge of soil is based primarily on quantitative analysis of isolated physical, chemical, and biological properties. However, the interaction of these quantitative aspects determines soil quality. Integrative tools are needed by researchers, farmers, regulators, and others to evaluate changes in soil quality from human activity at a local and global level. An index needs to be adaptable to local or regional conditions. For example, the parameters needed to determine changes in soil quality may differ between a semi-arid wheat field and a rice paddy. Suitable reference points and optimum ranges are needed for soil quality attributes. The present challenge is to integrate a suite of soiltests into a meaningful index that correlates with productivity, environmental, and health goals.

Keywords

soil healthsoil conditionsoil analysis

Information

Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 1-2: Special Issue on Soil Quality , June 1992 , pp. 12 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Beus, C., Bezdicek, D.F., Carlson, J.E., Dillman, D.A., Granatstein, D., Miller, B.C., Mulla, D., Painter, K., and Young, D.L.. 1990. Prospects for sustainable agriculture in the Palouse: Farmer experiences and viewpoints. XB1016. Agric. Research Cent., Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
2.Black, C.A. (ed). 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Agronomy Monograph 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.JrBolton, H., Elliott, L.F., Papendick, R.I., and Bezdicek, D.F.. 1985. Soil microbial biomass and selected enzyme activities: Effect of fertilization and cropping practices. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17(3):297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Chapman, H.D., and Pratt, P.F.. 1961. Methods of Analysis for Soils, Plants, and Waters. Div. Agric. Sciences, Univ. of California, Riverside.Google Scholar
5.Conway, G.R. 1985. Agricultural ecology and farming systems research. In Remenyi, J.V. (ed). Agricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra.Google Scholar
6.Doran, J.W. 1980. Soil microbial and biochemical changes associated with reduced tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 44:765–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Dormaar, J.F., and Lindwall, C.W.. 1989. Chemical differences in dark brown chernozemic Ap horizons under various conservation tillage systems. Can. J. Soil Sci. 69:481–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Gersmehl, P.J., Baker, B., and Brown, D.A.. 1989. Land management effects on innate soil erodibility: A potential complication for compliance planning. J. Soil and Water Conservation 44:417–420.Google Scholar
9.Higa, T. 1991. Effective microorganisms: A biotechnology for mankind. In Parr, J.F., Hornick, S.B., and Whitman, C.E. (eds). Proceedings First International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming. Khon Kaen, Thailand, 10 17–21, 1989. USAID, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
10.Howard, Albert. 1947. The Soil and Health. Devin-Adair, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
11.Jackson, M. 1988. Amish agriculture and no-till: The hazards of applying the USLE to unusual farms. J. Soil and Water Conservation 43:483–486.Google Scholar
12.Johnson, M.G., and Kern, J.S.. 1991. Sequestering carbon in soils: A workshop to explore the potential for mitigating global climate change. USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
13.Mallawatantri, A., and Mulla, D.J.. 1992. Herbicide adsorption and organic carbon contents on adjacent low-input versus conventional farms. J. Environ. Qual. (21(4): in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Page, A.L. (ed). 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
15.Patten, A.G.W. 1982. Comparison of nitrogen and phosphorus flows on an organic and conventional farm. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Agronomy and Soils, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
16.Perfect, E., and Kay, B.D.. 1990. Relations between aggregate stability and organic components for a silt loam soil. Canadian J. Soil Sci. 70:731–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Pfeiffer, E.E. 1984. Chromatography applied to quality testing. Bio-Dynamic Literature, Wyoming, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
18.Rasmussen, P.E., and Collins, H.P.. 1991. Longterm impacts of tillage, fertilizer, and crop residue on soil organic matter in temperate semiarid regions. Advances in Agronomy 45:93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Rasmussen, P.E., Collins, H.P., and Smiley, R.E.. 1989. Long-term management effects on soil productivity and crop yields in semi-arid regions of eastern Oregon. Station Bulletin 675, USDA-ARS and Oregon State University, Pendleton.Google Scholar
20.Reganold, J.P. 1988. Comparison of soil properties as influenced by organic and conventional farming systems. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 3(4):144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Rodale Institute. 1991. Conference report and abstracts, International Conference on the Assessment and Monitoring of Soil Quality. Rodale Institute, Emmaus, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
22.Rodale, R. 1981. Our Next Frontier: A Personal Guide for Tomorrow's Lifestyle. Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
23.Russell, J.S., and Williams, C.H.. 1982. Biogeochemical interactions of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus in Australian agroecosystems. In Freney, J.R. and Galbally, I.E. (eds). Cycling of Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfur and Phosphorus in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Skidmore, E.L., Carstenson, W.A., and Banbury, E.E.. 1975. Soil changes resulting from cropping. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39:964–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Smith, K.A., and Mullins, C.E. (eds). 1991. Soil Analysis: Physical Properties. Marcel Dekker, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
26.Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Soil conditioning rating indices for major irrigated and non-irrigated crops grown in the western U.S. Conservation Agronomy Technical Note 27. Western Resgion Technical Center, U.S. Dept. of Agric., Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
27.Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Palouse cooperative river basin study. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
28.Wilde, S.A. 1955. Analysis of Soils and Plants for Foresters and Horticulturalists. J.W. Edwards Publ., Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
29.Willard, C.J. 1959. Rotation experiments. Research Bull. 847, Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta., Wooster.Google Scholar
30.Zech, W., Haumaier, L., and Hempfling, R.. 1990. Ecological aspects of soil organic matter in tropical land use. In MacCarthy, P., Clapp, C.E., Malcolm, R.L., and Bloom, P.R. (eds). Humic Substances in Soil and Crop Sciences: Selected Readings. Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 187–202.Google Scholar