Soil Capability for the USA Now and into the Future

Levin, Maxine J.; Dobos, Robert R.; Peaslee, S. D.; Smith, D. W.; Seybold, C. A.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43394-3_6

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, its assessment ideally should include information about land management and how this can change soil properties and about environmental variables such as climate and landform. This was the approach common in land capability schemes such as Klingebiel and Montgomery [26], Emery [27] and Helms [28], or the land and soil capability schemes of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) [5] and Levin et al [6].…”

Section: Basic Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A soil mapping unit represents a parcel or tract of land and this will be characterised by series of land features as well as soil properties (Table in Reference [27]). Both the soil properties and land features can be used to assess the soil and land capability [5,6,[8][9][10][11]. Dominati et al [15] and McBratney et al [1] acknowledge that soils are part of the landscape and that land features or land qualities have a bearing on land evaluation and soil capability.…”

Section: Basic Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is minimal information on how to assess these risks. Other risks include soil acidification, nutrient decline, surface crusting, wetness, aridity and decline in vegetation cover [5][6][7][8]20,35]. It is the stability of the soil condition to these threats that influences the soil capability.…”

Section: Links Between Soil Capability Land Management and Environmementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The soil security approach supersedes the single focus land capability and land suitability approach to land evaluation that concentrates on the biophysical component of land management [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Soil security also accounts for the social economic and natural capital components of land management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The soil security concept is related to the "soil capital" concept [15]. It represents a change from the traditional approach of many soil evaluation systems that emphasised the limitations and negative aspects of soil and land degradation [5, 6,8]. However, there still remains the need for clarification about the meaning and definitions of the dimensions used in the concept, particularly the dimensions of soil capability and soil condition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Application of the Soil Security Concept to Two Contrasting Soil Landscape Systems—Implications for Soil Capability and Sustainable Land Management

Murphy

Fogarty²

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Basic Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Basic Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Links Between Soil Capability Land Management and Environmementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Application of the Soil Security Concept to Two Contrasting Soil Landscape Systems—Implications for Soil Capability and Sustainable Land Management

Murphy

Fogarty²

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Yield gap analysis for rainfed grain sorghum in Kansas

Sexton‐Bowser,

Patrignani

2024

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] production is concentrated in the US Great Plains region, with the state of Kansas accounting for ∼50% of the planted area. In Kansas, state‐level grain yields steadily increased at a rate of 0.07 Mg ha−1 year−1 from 1957 to 1990. However, since 1990, sorghum yield trends across the United States and Kansas have been exhibiting signs of yield stagnation. The objectives of this study were to (1) quantify the magnitude of the yield gap and (2) identify possible reasons for yield stagnation of rainfed sorghum in Kansas. Current yield (Yc) was estimated as the average yield of the most recently reported 10 years. Maximum attainable yield (Ya) and water‐limited potential yield (Yw) were estimated with a frontier yield function using an extensive dataset of crop performance trials, yield contest data, and county‐level survey yield data totaling 2997 site‐years. State‐level Yc was 4.7 Mg ha−1, which represents 77% of Ya and 49% of Yw. At a regional level, there is a trend of increasing yield gap in central and western Kansas sorghum‐producing regions. Sorghum yield in Kansas appears to be stagnant due to a small exploitable yield gap relative to Ya rather than Yw, a statewide shift in planting area to environments more vulnerable to water deficits, and cultivation in soils with moderate to severe limitations.

show abstract

Evaluation of indirect and direct scoring methods to relate biochemical soil quality indicators to ecosystem services

Xia

Wander

2022

Soil Science Soc of Amer J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil health assessments use scoring curves to quantify relationships between soil quality indicators (SQIs) and ecosystem services (ESSs). We evaluated methods for scoring curve development using three labile C pools (β-glucosidase [BG], fluorescein diacetate [FDA] hydrolysis, and permanganate oxidizable carbon [POXC]).Concepts and methods for SQI interpretation used by established frameworks were assessed, with 129 studies reporting relationships to either soil organic C (SOC) (n = 367), a common surrogate for indirect estimation of ESSs, or direct measures of crop yield (n = 88), soil respiration (n = 66), and N 2 O and CH 4 emissions (n = 51). Indirect assessment of BG using SOC and site covariates resolved tillage-based differences (P < .05). Correlations between SOC and SQIs observed under different land uses suggested that use of SOC for indirect scoring would be more effective for FDA than POXC. Direct relationships were generally positive between SQIs and yield (89%), soil respiration (89%), and N 2 O and CH 4 emissions (76%), but such relationships could be nonlinear. Direct assessment revealed that both positive and negative ESS outcomes increased with labile C fraction abundance that complicates the assignment of ESS-based SQI scores. Although direct SQI scores are relatively easy to interpret, relationships between scores and SQIs can vary 10-fold for different sites and cropping systems (upland versus rice paddy), which is much greater than treatment-based differences observed within single sites. To quantify relationships between SQIs and ESS outcomes, one must measure influential site covariates (SQI-ESS covariates) along with details about management, sampling, and analysis.

show abstract

Soil Capability for the USA Now and into the Future

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

Application of the Soil Security Concept to Two Contrasting Soil Landscape Systems—Implications for Soil Capability and Sustainable Land Management

Application of the Soil Security Concept to Two Contrasting Soil Landscape Systems—Implications for Soil Capability and Sustainable Land Management

Yield gap analysis for rainfed grain sorghum in Kansas

Evaluation of indirect and direct scoring methods to relate biochemical soil quality indicators to ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About