Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Knowledge needs, available practices, and futur...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Knowledge needs, available practices, and future challenges in agricultural soils

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Knowledge needs, available practices, and future challenges in agricultural soils. / Key, Georgina; Whitfield, Michael George; Cooper, Julia et al.
In: SOIL, Vol. 2, 10.10.2016, p. 511-521.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Key, G, Whitfield, MG, Cooper, J, De Vries, FT, Collison, M, Dedousis, T, Heathcote, R, Roth, B, Mohammed, S, Molyneux, A, Van der Putten, WH, Dicks, LV, Sutherland, WJ & Bardgett, RD 2016, 'Knowledge needs, available practices, and future challenges in agricultural soils', SOIL, vol. 2, pp. 511-521. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-511-2016

APA

Key, G., Whitfield, M. G., Cooper, J., De Vries, F. T., Collison, M., Dedousis, T., Heathcote, R., Roth, B., Mohammed, S., Molyneux, A., Van der Putten, W. H., Dicks, L. V., Sutherland, W. J., & Bardgett, R. D. (2016). Knowledge needs, available practices, and future challenges in agricultural soils. SOIL, 2, 511-521. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-511-2016

Vancouver

Key G, Whitfield MG, Cooper J, De Vries FT, Collison M, Dedousis T et al. Knowledge needs, available practices, and future challenges in agricultural soils. SOIL. 2016 Oct 10;2:511-521. doi: 10.5194/soil-2-511-2016

Author

Key, Georgina ; Whitfield, Michael George ; Cooper, Julia et al. / Knowledge needs, available practices, and future challenges in agricultural soils. In: SOIL. 2016 ; Vol. 2. pp. 511-521.

Bibtex

@article{a701f8466ed243d98f1613b747268903,
title = "Knowledge needs, available practices, and future challenges in agricultural soils",
abstract = "The goal of this study is to clarify research needs and identify effective practices for enhancing soil health. This was done by a synopsis of soil literature that specifically tests practices designed to maintain or enhance elements of soil health. Using an expert panel of soil scientists and practitioners, we then assessed the evidence in the soil synopsis to highlight practices beneficial to soil health, practices considered detrimental, and practices that need further investigation. A partial Spearman's correlation was used to analyse the panel's responses. We found that increased certainty in scientific evidence led to practices being considered to be more effective due to them being empirically justified. This suggests that for practices to be considered effective and put into practice, a substantial body of research is needed to support the effectiveness of the practice. This is further supported by the high proportion of practices (33 %), such as changing the timing of ploughing or amending the soil with crops grown as green manures, that experts felt had unknown effectiveness, usually due to insufficiently robust evidence. Only 7 of the 27 reviewed practices were considered to be beneficial, or likely to be beneficial in enhancing soil health. These included the use of (1) integrated nutrient management (organic and inorganic amendments); (2) cover crops; (3) crop rotations; (4) intercropping between crop rows or underneath the main crop; (5) formulated chemical compounds (such as nitrification inhibitors); (6) control of traffic and traffic timing; and (7) reducing grazing intensity. Our assessment, which uses the Delphi technique, is increasingly used to improve decision-making in conservation and agricultural policy, identified practices that can be put into practice to benefit soil health. Moreover, it has enabled us to identify practices that need further research and a need for increased communication between researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners, in order to find effective means of enhancing soil health.",
author = "Georgina Key and Whitfield, {Michael George} and Julia Cooper and {De Vries}, {Franciska Trijntje} and Martin Collison and Thanasis Dedousis and Richard Heathcote and Brendan Roth and Shamal Mohammed and Andrew Molyneux and {Van der Putten}, {Wim H.} and Dicks, {Lynn V.} and Sutherland, {William J.} and Bardgett, {Richard David}",
year = "2016",
month = oct,
day = "10",
doi = "10.5194/soil-2-511-2016",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "511--521",
journal = "SOIL",
issn = "2199-3971",
publisher = "Copernicus GmbH",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Knowledge needs, available practices, and future challenges in agricultural soils

AU - Key, Georgina

AU - Whitfield, Michael George

AU - Cooper, Julia

AU - De Vries, Franciska Trijntje

AU - Collison, Martin

AU - Dedousis, Thanasis

AU - Heathcote, Richard

AU - Roth, Brendan

AU - Mohammed, Shamal

AU - Molyneux, Andrew

AU - Van der Putten, Wim H.

AU - Dicks, Lynn V.

AU - Sutherland, William J.

AU - Bardgett, Richard David

PY - 2016/10/10

Y1 - 2016/10/10

N2 - The goal of this study is to clarify research needs and identify effective practices for enhancing soil health. This was done by a synopsis of soil literature that specifically tests practices designed to maintain or enhance elements of soil health. Using an expert panel of soil scientists and practitioners, we then assessed the evidence in the soil synopsis to highlight practices beneficial to soil health, practices considered detrimental, and practices that need further investigation. A partial Spearman's correlation was used to analyse the panel's responses. We found that increased certainty in scientific evidence led to practices being considered to be more effective due to them being empirically justified. This suggests that for practices to be considered effective and put into practice, a substantial body of research is needed to support the effectiveness of the practice. This is further supported by the high proportion of practices (33 %), such as changing the timing of ploughing or amending the soil with crops grown as green manures, that experts felt had unknown effectiveness, usually due to insufficiently robust evidence. Only 7 of the 27 reviewed practices were considered to be beneficial, or likely to be beneficial in enhancing soil health. These included the use of (1) integrated nutrient management (organic and inorganic amendments); (2) cover crops; (3) crop rotations; (4) intercropping between crop rows or underneath the main crop; (5) formulated chemical compounds (such as nitrification inhibitors); (6) control of traffic and traffic timing; and (7) reducing grazing intensity. Our assessment, which uses the Delphi technique, is increasingly used to improve decision-making in conservation and agricultural policy, identified practices that can be put into practice to benefit soil health. Moreover, it has enabled us to identify practices that need further research and a need for increased communication between researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners, in order to find effective means of enhancing soil health.

AB - The goal of this study is to clarify research needs and identify effective practices for enhancing soil health. This was done by a synopsis of soil literature that specifically tests practices designed to maintain or enhance elements of soil health. Using an expert panel of soil scientists and practitioners, we then assessed the evidence in the soil synopsis to highlight practices beneficial to soil health, practices considered detrimental, and practices that need further investigation. A partial Spearman's correlation was used to analyse the panel's responses. We found that increased certainty in scientific evidence led to practices being considered to be more effective due to them being empirically justified. This suggests that for practices to be considered effective and put into practice, a substantial body of research is needed to support the effectiveness of the practice. This is further supported by the high proportion of practices (33 %), such as changing the timing of ploughing or amending the soil with crops grown as green manures, that experts felt had unknown effectiveness, usually due to insufficiently robust evidence. Only 7 of the 27 reviewed practices were considered to be beneficial, or likely to be beneficial in enhancing soil health. These included the use of (1) integrated nutrient management (organic and inorganic amendments); (2) cover crops; (3) crop rotations; (4) intercropping between crop rows or underneath the main crop; (5) formulated chemical compounds (such as nitrification inhibitors); (6) control of traffic and traffic timing; and (7) reducing grazing intensity. Our assessment, which uses the Delphi technique, is increasingly used to improve decision-making in conservation and agricultural policy, identified practices that can be put into practice to benefit soil health. Moreover, it has enabled us to identify practices that need further research and a need for increased communication between researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners, in order to find effective means of enhancing soil health.

U2 - 10.5194/soil-2-511-2016

DO - 10.5194/soil-2-511-2016

M3 - Journal article

VL - 2

SP - 511

EP - 521

JO - SOIL

JF - SOIL

SN - 2199-3971

ER -