Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:08:29.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterization of soil quality: Physical and chemical criteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

M.A. Arshad  and
G.M. Coen
M.A. Arshad
Affiliation:
Soil Scientist, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Beaverlodge, Alberta, CanadaT0H 0C0.
G.M. Coen
Affiliation:
Soil Scientist, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaT6H 5R7.
Get access

Abstract

The impact of soil degradation on human welfare and the global environment presents a major challenge. A significant decline in soil quality has occurred worldwide through adverse changes in its physical, chemical and biological attributes and contamination by inorganic and organic chemicals. There is a need to develop criteria to evaluate soil quality so that the progress of any corrective action required by the international community can be monitored.

There currently are no generally accepted criteria to evaluate changes in soil quality. This lack impedes the design and evaluation of meaningful soil management programs. This paper examines the principal physical and chemical attributes that can serve as indicators of a change in soil quality under particular agroclimatic conditions. Proposed indicators include soil depth to a root restricting layer, available water-holding capacity, bulk density/penetration resistance, hydraulic conductivity, aggregate stability, organic matter, nutrient availability/retention capacity, pH, and where appropriate, electrical conductivity and exchangeable sodium. We also discuss the justification for selecting these key attributes, their measurement, critical limits for monitoring changes in soil productivity, and future research needs in soil quality.

Keywords

soil quality evaluationsoil degradation
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 1-2: Special Issue on Soil Quality , June 1992 , pp. 25 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Arvidsson, J., and Håkansson, I.. 1991. A model for estimating crop yield losses caused by soil compaction. Soil and Tillage Research 20:319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Bauder, J.W., Randall, G.W., and Swann, J.B.. 1981. Effect of four continuous tillage systems on mechanical impedance of a clay loam soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 45:802–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Benbrook, C. 1991. Protecting Iowa's common wealth: Challenges for the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. J. Soil and Water Conservation 46:89–95.Google Scholar
4.Bowman, R.A., Reeder, J.D., and Schuman, G.E.. 1990. Evaluation of selected soil physical, chemical and biological parameters as indicators of soil productivity. Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil Quality in Semi-arid Agriculture (1989), Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. 2:64–70.Google Scholar
5.Bradford, J.M. 1986. Penetrability. In Klute, A. (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 463–478.Google Scholar
6.Brundtland, G.H. 1987. Our Common Future. The Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
7.Doll, B.C. 1964. Lime for Michigan soils. Michigan Agric. Exp. Sta. Ext. Bull. 471.Google Scholar
8.Ehlers, W., Kopke, W., Hesse, F., and Bohm, W.. 1983. Penetration resistance and root growth of oats in tilled and untilled loess soil. Soil and Tillage Research 3:261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.FAO/UNEP. 1983. Guidelines for the control of soil degradation. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
10.FAO/UNEP/UNESCO. 1979. A provisional methodology for soil degradation assessment. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
11.Gollany, H.T., Schumacher, T.E., Evenson, P.D., Lindstrom, M.J., and Lemme, G.D.. 1991. Aggregate stability of an eroded and desurfaced Typic Argiustoll. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 55:811–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Hammel, J.E. 1989. Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on bulk density and soil impedance in Northern Idaho. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 53:1515–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Jones, O.R., and Hauser, V.L.. 1975. Runoff utilization for grain production. In Water Harvest Symposium Proceedings, Phoenix, Arizona. U.S. Dept. of Agric. ARS W-22. pp. 277–283.Google Scholar
14.Karlen, D.L., Erbach, D.C., Kasper, T.C., Colvin, T.S., Berry, E.C., and Timmons, D.R.. 1990. Soil tilth: A review of past perceptions and future needs. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 54:153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Kemper, W.D., and Rosenau, R.C.. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In Klute, A. (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 425–441.Google Scholar
16.Klute, A. (ed). 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Kumar, A., and Abrol, I.P.. 1986. Grasses in alkali soils. Tech. Bull. No. 11. Central Soil Salinity Research Inst., Karnal, India.Google Scholar
18.Lal, R., and Stewart, B.A. (eds). 1990. Soil Degradation. Advances in Soil Science. Vol. 2. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Lebel, G.G., and Kane, H.. 1987. Sustainable Development – A Guide to our Common Future. The Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
20.Letey, J. 1985. Relationship between soil physical properties and crop production. In Stewart, B.A. (ed). Advances in Soil Science. Vol. 1. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y. pp. 227–294Google Scholar
21.McKeague, J.A., Wang, C., and Coen, G.M.. 1986. Description and interpretation of the macrostructure of mineral soils – preliminary report. LRRCTech. Bull. 1986–2F. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
22.Nelson, D.W., and Sommers, L.E. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Page, A.L. (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 539–594.Google Scholar
23.Page, A.L. (ed). 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
24.Reynolds, W.D., and Elrick, D.E.. 1991. Determination of hydraulic conductivity using a tension infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 55:633–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Rhoades, L.A. 1982. Soluble salts. In Page, A.L. (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 9. Amer. Soc. Agronomy and Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 167–179.Google Scholar
26.Worldwatch Institute. 1990. State of the World 1990. A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Worldwatch Inst., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar