Comparison of LUCAS and Italian Sampling Procedures for Harmonising Physicochemical and Biological Soil Health Indicators

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q2 SOIL SCIENCE
Sara Del Duca, Elena Tondini, Francesco Vitali, Erica Lumini, Adriano Garlato, Ialina Vinci, Elisa Tagliaferri, Stefano Brenna, Silvia Motta, Emile Maillet, Antonio Bispo, Alberto Orgiazzi, Arwyn Jones, Stefano Mocali, Maria Fantappiè
{"title":"Comparison of LUCAS and Italian Sampling Procedures for Harmonising Physicochemical and Biological Soil Health Indicators","authors":"Sara Del Duca, Elena Tondini, Francesco Vitali, Erica Lumini, Adriano Garlato, Ialina Vinci, Elisa Tagliaferri, Stefano Brenna, Silvia Motta, Emile Maillet, Antonio Bispo, Alberto Orgiazzi, Arwyn Jones, Stefano Mocali, Maria Fantappiè","doi":"10.1111/ejss.70108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Comparability of soil data derived from different sources is crucial to obtain consistent results when evaluating the soil health status. Discrepancies may arise due to various factors, including uncertainties resulting from different sampling methods. In this study, we compared various soil Physicochemical properties (ST)—pH, organic carbon, texture, cation exchange capacity, nutrients, heavy metals—and microbial diversity (BIO) of samples collected following both the LUCAS Soil (performed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre, JRC) and the Italian (performed by two regional agencies) procedures. The aim was to evaluate the effect of applying different soil sampling protocols on ST and BIO data. Soil samples from 58 LUCAS Soil 2022 sampling sites located in northern Italy were collected following both sampling protocols. Data obtained from ST analyses highlighted that the LUCAS and Italian protocols are comparable for most of the soil properties. Nevertheless, results can differ significantly depending on the parameter being considered, as evidenced by the concordance index varying from 0.37 to 1. Concerning BIO analyses, although the investigation of the microbial diversity indicators did not show a good concordance between the two sampling strategies, an analysis of the community structure highlighted a good correlation (Pearson's <jats:italic>R</jats:italic> &gt; 0.6). An effect of the different land cover was observed for both ST and BIO analyses, suggesting that this could be a parameter to be considered when combining soil data obtained by different sampling protocols. Also, fungal communities showed lower concordance between LUCAS and Italian samples, highlighting a higher heterogeneity and a minor replicability with respect to bacteria and ST soil properties. In conclusion, this comparison generally showed consistency among the two sampling methods, suggesting that an integration of data from different sources is indeed possible for most of the parameters being analysed. However, further research is needed to obtain a sufficient level of harmonisation between LUCAS Soil and Italian sampling procedures for those soil properties for which a significant discordance was found.","PeriodicalId":12043,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Soil Science","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Soil Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.70108","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Comparability of soil data derived from different sources is crucial to obtain consistent results when evaluating the soil health status. Discrepancies may arise due to various factors, including uncertainties resulting from different sampling methods. In this study, we compared various soil Physicochemical properties (ST)—pH, organic carbon, texture, cation exchange capacity, nutrients, heavy metals—and microbial diversity (BIO) of samples collected following both the LUCAS Soil (performed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre, JRC) and the Italian (performed by two regional agencies) procedures. The aim was to evaluate the effect of applying different soil sampling protocols on ST and BIO data. Soil samples from 58 LUCAS Soil 2022 sampling sites located in northern Italy were collected following both sampling protocols. Data obtained from ST analyses highlighted that the LUCAS and Italian protocols are comparable for most of the soil properties. Nevertheless, results can differ significantly depending on the parameter being considered, as evidenced by the concordance index varying from 0.37 to 1. Concerning BIO analyses, although the investigation of the microbial diversity indicators did not show a good concordance between the two sampling strategies, an analysis of the community structure highlighted a good correlation (Pearson's R > 0.6). An effect of the different land cover was observed for both ST and BIO analyses, suggesting that this could be a parameter to be considered when combining soil data obtained by different sampling protocols. Also, fungal communities showed lower concordance between LUCAS and Italian samples, highlighting a higher heterogeneity and a minor replicability with respect to bacteria and ST soil properties. In conclusion, this comparison generally showed consistency among the two sampling methods, suggesting that an integration of data from different sources is indeed possible for most of the parameters being analysed. However, further research is needed to obtain a sufficient level of harmonisation between LUCAS Soil and Italian sampling procedures for those soil properties for which a significant discordance was found.
统一土壤理化和生物健康指标的LUCAS和意大利抽样程序的比较
在评价土壤健康状况时,不同来源土壤数据的可比性对于获得一致的结果至关重要。差异可能由各种因素引起,包括不同采样方法造成的不确定性。在这项研究中,我们比较了卢卡斯土壤(由欧洲委员会联合研究中心,JRC)和意大利(由两个区域机构执行)程序收集的样品的各种土壤物理化学性质(ST) -pH值,有机碳,质地,阳离子交换能力,养分,重金属和微生物多样性(BIO)。目的是评估不同土壤采样方案对ST和BIO数据的影响。根据两种采样方案,从意大利北部的58个LUCAS Soil 2022采样点收集了土壤样本。从ST分析中获得的数据强调,LUCAS和意大利方案在大多数土壤特性方面具有可比性。然而,根据所考虑的参数,结果可能会有很大差异,一致性指数从0.37到1不等。在生物分析方面,尽管微生物多样性指标的调查没有显示出两种采样策略之间的良好一致性,但群落结构的分析突出了良好的相关性(Pearson's R >;0.6)。在ST和BIO分析中都观察到不同土地覆盖的影响,这表明在结合不同采样方案获得的土壤数据时,这可能是一个需要考虑的参数。此外,卢卡斯和意大利样品之间的真菌群落一致性较低,这表明在细菌和ST土壤特性方面存在较高的异质性和较小的可复制性。总之,这种比较总体上显示了两种抽样方法之间的一致性,这表明对于所分析的大多数参数来说,整合来自不同来源的数据确实是可能的。然而,需要进一步的研究来获得卢卡斯土壤和意大利采样程序之间的足够的协调水平,这些土壤特性发现了显著的不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Soil Science
European Journal of Soil Science 农林科学-土壤科学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
117
审稿时长
5 months
期刊介绍: The EJSS is an international journal that publishes outstanding papers in soil science that advance the theoretical and mechanistic understanding of physical, chemical and biological processes and their interactions in soils acting from molecular to continental scales in natural and managed environments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信