Soil health quantification via SMAF and CASH across diverse land uses

IF 6.6 1区 农林科学 Q1 SOIL SCIENCE
Xucheng Hu , Manbir K. Rakkar , Steve W. Lyon , Kevin S. Armstrong , Douglas B. Jackson-Smith , Van R. Haden , Nicola Lorenz , Shane D. Whitacre , James A. Ippolito
{"title":"Soil health quantification via SMAF and CASH across diverse land uses","authors":"Xucheng Hu ,&nbsp;Manbir K. Rakkar ,&nbsp;Steve W. Lyon ,&nbsp;Kevin S. Armstrong ,&nbsp;Douglas B. Jackson-Smith ,&nbsp;Van R. Haden ,&nbsp;Nicola Lorenz ,&nbsp;Shane D. Whitacre ,&nbsp;James A. Ippolito","doi":"10.1016/j.geoderma.2025.117492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Soil health quantification helps to visualize soil health conditions across different agroecosystem land use and management practices. However, using different soil health platforms for soil health quantification may lead to varying outcomes. This study quantified soil health via two frequently used soil health frameworks, namely the Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) and the Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health (CASH), across eleven sites pertaining to different land use management strategies, including a deciduous (DF) and an evergreen forest (EF), managed pastures including a livestock integrated beef pasture (BP) and a pasture for hay harvesting (DP), and seven crop lands with multiple management practices. Results suggested that managed pasture sites were associated with the best overall soil health scores within both frameworks (BP 0.92 and 81, DP 0.90 and 79, for SMAF and CASH, respectively). Among all crop fields, a certified organic managed site showed the greatest soil health (0.88 and 75 for SMAF and CASH, respectively), primarily due to soil organic carbon (SOC) accumulation. Most soil health indicators included in SMAF and CASH were sensitive to present land use and management practice differences. However, the result for active carbon (from CASH) was not sensitive to land use, and the findings indicated that β-glucosidase activity (from SMAF) was merely correlated to soil pH. The overall soil health scores generated from these two frameworks were significantly correlated (r = 0.58), and the outcome of both frameworks was driven largely by soil biological indicators (r = 0.87 for both SMAF and CASH, respectively). The overall soil health scores suggested that CASH was more sensitive to land use and management practices compared to SMAF based on a wider spread in overall soil health scores across land uses and management practices in the cultivated fields. The use of forested sites as a potential soil health benchmark for cropped lands was not feasible primarily due to their low soil pH (DF = 5.41 and EF = 4.22) that likely supported different soil biogeochemical process as compared to managed agroecosystems. In contrast, results from this study suggest that managed pastures (BP and DP) are a more promising benchmark for assessing soil health in croplands within this region of the U.S.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12511,"journal":{"name":"Geoderma","volume":"461 ","pages":"Article 117492"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoderma","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706125003337","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Soil health quantification helps to visualize soil health conditions across different agroecosystem land use and management practices. However, using different soil health platforms for soil health quantification may lead to varying outcomes. This study quantified soil health via two frequently used soil health frameworks, namely the Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) and the Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health (CASH), across eleven sites pertaining to different land use management strategies, including a deciduous (DF) and an evergreen forest (EF), managed pastures including a livestock integrated beef pasture (BP) and a pasture for hay harvesting (DP), and seven crop lands with multiple management practices. Results suggested that managed pasture sites were associated with the best overall soil health scores within both frameworks (BP 0.92 and 81, DP 0.90 and 79, for SMAF and CASH, respectively). Among all crop fields, a certified organic managed site showed the greatest soil health (0.88 and 75 for SMAF and CASH, respectively), primarily due to soil organic carbon (SOC) accumulation. Most soil health indicators included in SMAF and CASH were sensitive to present land use and management practice differences. However, the result for active carbon (from CASH) was not sensitive to land use, and the findings indicated that β-glucosidase activity (from SMAF) was merely correlated to soil pH. The overall soil health scores generated from these two frameworks were significantly correlated (r = 0.58), and the outcome of both frameworks was driven largely by soil biological indicators (r = 0.87 for both SMAF and CASH, respectively). The overall soil health scores suggested that CASH was more sensitive to land use and management practices compared to SMAF based on a wider spread in overall soil health scores across land uses and management practices in the cultivated fields. The use of forested sites as a potential soil health benchmark for cropped lands was not feasible primarily due to their low soil pH (DF = 5.41 and EF = 4.22) that likely supported different soil biogeochemical process as compared to managed agroecosystems. In contrast, results from this study suggest that managed pastures (BP and DP) are a more promising benchmark for assessing soil health in croplands within this region of the U.S.
通过不同土地利用的SMAF和CASH进行土壤健康量化
土壤健康量化有助于可视化不同农业生态系统土地利用和管理做法的土壤健康状况。然而,使用不同的土壤健康平台进行土壤健康量化可能导致不同的结果。本研究通过两个常用的土壤健康框架(即土壤管理评估框架(SMAF)和土壤健康综合评估(CASH))对土壤健康进行了量化,研究对象包括11个不同土地利用管理策略的地点,包括落叶森林(DF)和常绿森林(EF),管理牧场(包括牲畜综合牛肉牧场(BP)和干草收获牧场(DP)),以及7个采用多种管理措施的农田。结果表明,在两个框架中,管理牧场与最佳土壤健康总分相关(SMAF和CASH的BP分别为0.92和81,DP分别为0.90和79)。在所有农田中,经有机管理认证的农田土壤健康程度最高(SMAF为0.88,CASH为75),主要原因是土壤有机碳(SOC)积累。SMAF和CASH中包含的大多数土壤健康指标对当前土地利用和管理实践差异敏感。然而,活性炭(来自CASH)的结果对土地利用不敏感,结果表明β-葡萄糖苷酶活性(来自SMAF)仅与土壤ph相关。这两个框架产生的总体土壤健康评分显著相关(r = 0.58),两个框架的结果主要受土壤生物指标的驱动(r = 0.87)分别为SMAF和CASH。总体土壤健康得分表明,与SMAF相比,CASH对土地利用和管理措施更敏感,这是基于耕地中土地利用和管理措施的总体土壤健康得分分布更广。利用森林场地作为耕地的潜在土壤健康基准是不可行的,主要原因是它们的土壤pH值较低(DF = 5.41, EF = 4.22),与管理的农业生态系统相比,可能支持不同的土壤生物地球化学过程。相比之下,本研究的结果表明,管理牧场(BP和DP)是评估美国该地区农田土壤健康状况的更有希望的基准
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
Geoderma
Geoderma 农林科学-土壤科学
CiteScore
11.80
自引率
6.60%
发文量
597
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Geoderma - the global journal of soil science - welcomes authors, readers and soil research from all parts of the world, encourages worldwide soil studies, and embraces all aspects of soil science and its associated pedagogy. The journal particularly welcomes interdisciplinary work focusing on dynamic soil processes and functions across space and time.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信