This study presents the main results and the methodology used in the creation of the atlas of the risk of desertification in Italy.

Successful adoption of precision viticulture at the farm level depends on the appreciation of vineyard spatial variability. Knowing the spatial variability of soil properties is a challenge, often very expensive and labor intensive. An alternative approach could be the combined utilization of proximal and remote sensors. This study combined proximal (Geonics EM38‐MK2) and remote (normalized difference vegetation index, NDVI) sensing aimed at mapping homogeneous zones (HZs) of two 3.5‐ha vineyards in the Chianti wine district (Italy). Two HZs in each vineyard were obtained by a k‐means clustering of the first two factors of the principal component analysis performed on four maps: (i) apparent electrical conductivity, obtained by EM38‐MK2 at 0 to 75 cm (ECa1) and (ii) 0 to150 cm (ECa2); (iii) topographic wetness index (TWI), calculated from a digital elevation model; and (iv) NDVI extrapolated by multispectral airborne images. Only ECa1 and ECa2 were correlated with some physical (silt and gravel content) and hydrologic (available water capacity) features of the soils. These two variables could also better discriminate the two HZs with respect to NDVI and TWI. The grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) of the selected HZs were separately harvested and vinified to test the differences in the wine quality. Significant differences emerged between the wines produced from the two HZs, especially in terms of color intensity, dry extract, and anthocyanin content. A wine tasting after 6‐mo aging of the wines confirmed the differences between the wines produced in the two zones, especially in terms of color, structure, and total score.

No abstract

No abstract

In Chap. 6, dealing with pedodiversity of Italy, Edoardo A. C. Costantini, Roberto\ud Barbetti, Maria Fantappie` , Giovanni L’Abate, Romina Lorenzetti, and Simona Magini\ud illustrate the distribution of soil classes, mainly by means of maps. Soil regions on hills\ud are the most lithologically and climatically variable environments, and host the greatest\ud soil variability and endemisms. A vast majority of the WRB reference soil groups (25 out\ud of 32), as well as soil orders of Soil Taxonomy (10 out of 12) are represented in the main\ud Italian soil typological units (STUs), but the clear skewness and lognormal distribution\ud of STUs demonstrate the utmost endemic nature of many Italian soils. In particular,\ud more than a fourth of STUs belong to Cambisols, more than a half to only four\ud reference soil groups (Cambisols, Luvisols, Regosols, Phaeozems), and 88 % to nine\ud RSGs (the former plus Calcisols, Vertisols, Fluvisols, Leptosols, and Andosols), while\ud the remaining 16 RSGs are represented in 12 % of STUs. A similar trend is depicted by\ud considering single soil profile classification, although a larger number of main soil types\ud are represented as soil profiles than as STUs. In particular, there are profiles classified as\ud Albeluvisol, Anthrosol, Cryosol, Plinthosol, and Technosol of WRB, and Gelisols of\ud Soil Taxonomy, which are not correlated to a STU. Consequently, Ferralsols (Oxisols\ud for Soil Taxonomy) and Durisols are the only main kind of soils that have not yet been\ud found in Italy. Likewise RSGs, the distribution of WRB qualifiers shows an evident\ud concentration in relatively few cases, followed by a long tail. In particular, 138 out of the\ud 180 types foreseen by WRB are represented in Italy. Thus, it is possible to say that in\ud Italy there is about three-quarters of the global pedodiversity. Although the most\ud common qualifiers (that is Calcaric, Haplic, Skeletic, Eutric) are all related to the nature\ud of parent material and to incipient pedogenesis, a second group (namely Chromic,Calcic, Stagnic, and Luvic) indicates the main soil forming mechanisms that typify\ud current Italian pedogenesis