Soil health – What should the doctor order?

There is increasing enthusiasm around the concept of soil health, and as a result, new public and private initiatives are being developed to increase soil health-related practices on working lands in the United States. In addition, billions of U.S. public dollars are dedicated annually toward soil conservation programs, and yet, it is not well quantified how investment in conservation programs improve soil health and, more broadly, environmental health. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is one of the major U.S. public conservation programs administered on privately managed lands for which public data are available. In this research, we developed a multi-dimensional classification system to evaluate over 300 EQIP practices to identify to what extent practices have the potential to improve different aspects of soil and environmental health. Using available descriptions and expert opinion, these practices were evaluated with a classification system based on the practice's potential to exhibit the following environmental health outcomes: (i) principles of soil health to reduce soil disturbance and increase agrobiodiversity; (ii) a transition to ecologically-based management to conserve soil, water, energy and biological resources; and (iii) adaptive strategy to confer agroecosystem resilience. Further, we analyzed nearly $7 billion U.S. dollars of financial assistance dedicated to these practices from 2009 through 2018 to explore the potential of these investments to generate environmental health outcomes. We identified nine practices that fit the highest level of potential environmental health outcomes in our classification systems. These included wetlands and agroforestry related practices, demonstrating that ecologically complex practices can provide the broadest benefits to environmental health. Practices with the greatest potential to improve environmental health in our classification system represent 2–27% of annual EQIP funding between 2009 and 2018. In fiscal year 2018, these practices represented between $13 and 121 million, which represented ~0.08% of total annual USDA expenditures. These classifications and the subsequent funding analysis provide evidence that there is tremendous untapped potential for conservation programs to confer greater environmental health in U.S. agriculture. This analysis provides a new framework for assessing conservation investments as a driver for transformative agricultural change.

The foundation of most food production systems underpinning global food security is the careful management of soil resources. Embedded in the concept of soil health is the impact of diverse soil-borne pests and pathogens, and phytoparasitic nematodes represent a particular challenge. Root-knot nematodes and cyst nematodes are severe threats to agriculture, accounting for annual yield losses of US$157 billion. The control of soil-borne phytoparasitic nematodes conventionally relies on the use of chemical nematicides, which can have adverse effects on the environment and human health due to their persistence in soil, plants, and water. Nematode-resistant plants offer a promising alternative, but genetic resistance is species-dependent, limited to a few crops, and breeding and deploying resistant cultivars often takes years. Novel approaches for the control of phytoparasitic nematodes are therefore required, those that specifically target these parasites in the ground whilst minimizing the impact on the environment, agricultural ecosystems, and human health. In addition to the development of next-generation, environmentally safer nematicides, promising biochemical strategies include the combination of RNA interference (RNAi) with nanomaterials that ensure the targeted delivery and controlled release of double-stranded RNA. Genome sequencing has identified more than 75 genes in root knot and cyst nematodes that have been targeted with RNAi so far. But despite encouraging results, the delivery of dsRNA to nematodes in the soil remains inefficient. In this review article, we describe the state-of-the-art RNAi approaches targeting phytoparasitic nematodes and consider the potential benefits of nanotechnology to improve dsRNA delivery.

The sampling and analysis or visual examination of soil to assess its health status are widely practiced from plot to national scales. However, available data are often not made easily accessible and new data are not always shared with the wider public, creating a partial understanding of soil processes and health status across different geographies, as well as a misuse of resources.To address these challenges, Varda has created an interactive digital soil platform, named SoilHive, which provides an overview of existing soil data across the globe, facilitates the identification of soil data gaps across regions, and supports soil data sharing and interoperability.To facilitate the identification of functional soil data gaps, Varda created a visualization tool to enable users to identify the extent to which the data available in their selected regions of interest allow them to characterize key soil characteristics and functions, starting with soil health. To this end, Varda collaborated with a team at the Aberdeen University to define a minimum set of indicators and associated soil properties, covering diverse soil degradation processes and ecosystem services, to describe soil health at the local level with a focus on agricultural settings. SoilHive users will be able to select a region of interest and verify how many of those indicators are available to characterize soil health: the gap between the available data and the required data will be marked as the "Soil Health Data Gap" and described as the percentage of data over the total number of indicators.This Soil Health Data Gap could facilitate the identification of those regions where data collection efforts should be intensified, informing the prioritization of actions aimed at bridging existing gaps while expanding the availability of soil data. Several proposed activities to address this gap include targeted soil mining activities to collect historical and non-digitized soil data, advocating for data-sharing collaborations among diverse stakeholders, and organizing brand-new soil sampling campaigns. Moreover, additional soil health definitions could be used to provide the user with different representations of soil health data gaps, in line with these definitions.Closing the existing Soil Health Data Gaps bears significant importance, as it empowers us to deepen our comprehension of soil health dynamics. By expanding soil data transparency across all sectors and stakeholders, we would gain the ability to make well-informed decisions regarding optimal soil management practices, efficiently allocate resources, and strive to enhance soil health for the betterment of both present and future generations.

The North Central Education and Research Activity Committee (NCERA-59) was formed in 1952 to address how soil organic matter formation and management practices affect soil structure and productivity. It is in this capacity that we comment on the science supporting soil quality and associated soil health assessment for agricultural lands with the goal of hastening progress in this important field. Even though the suite of soil quality indicators being applied by U.S. soil health efforts closely mirrors the ‘minimum data set’ we developed and recommended in the mid-1990s, we question whether the methods or means for their selection and development are sufficient to meet current and emerging soil health challenges. The rush to enshrine a standard suite of dated measures may be incompatible with longer-term goals. Legitimate study of soil health considers soil change accrued over years to decades that influence on- and off-site function. Tailoring of methods to local conditions is needed to effectively apply and interpret indicators for different soil resource regions and land uses. Adherence to a set suite of methods selected by subjective criteria should be avoided, particularly when we do not yet have adequate data or agreed upon interpretive frameworks for many so-called ‘Tier 1’ biological indicators used in soil health assessment. While pooling data collected by producer-groups is one of the most exciting new trends in soil health, standardizing methods to meet broad inventory goals could compromise indicator use for site or application-specific problem solving. Changes in our nation’s research landscape are shifting responsibility

In Europe soil health is facing emerging challenges that require innovative solutions and policy interventions. We acknowledge that 62% of the European Union (EU) soils are not in healthy condition, while we face serious challenges such as climate change, food security, biodiversity loss, and socio-economic pressures. The severity of these issues is evident in the fact that soil erosion is unsustainable for around ¼ of the EU territory, carbon stocks in soils are declining, nutrients are depleting, and emerging contaminants can pose a serious threat to soil and human health. The costs of soil degradation in the EU may reach up to €70 billion per year, highlighting the urgent need for action. To address these challenges, the EU has put in place many policies for agro-environmental protection since 2000, including soil protection. The European Green Deal, launched in 2020, has set an ambitious roadmap to make the EU the first carbon-neutral continent with a modern, competitive, and resource-efficient economy. As part of the Green Deal, the European Commission (EC) has put soil protection in a high position on the EU policy agenda, recognizing that healthy soils are essential to achieve climate neutrality, zero pollution, sustainable food provision, and a resilient environment. This increased focus on soil health has led to the development of new policies and initiatives, such as the Soil Monitoring and Resilience Directive, which aims to establish a common framework for monitoring and assessing soil health in the EU. The Soil Monitoring and Resilience Directive, in place since December 2025, lays down measures for monitoring and assessing soil health, managing soils sustainably, and restoring contaminated sites. Furthermore, the Mission Soil, which aims to set up 100 Living Labs to promote sustainable land and soil management in urban and rural areas, will play a crucial role in achieving the objective of healthy soils by 2050. With an estimated investment of nearly €800 million until 2028, funded research projects under the Mission Soil are expected to reverse soil degradation through action on the ground, underpinned by the development and monitoring of a set of indicators. In addition to these initiatives, the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) regulation is the first EU volunteer framework for certifying carbon removals and carbon farming. This regulation will monitor, report, and verify carbon removals, soil emission reduction, and biodiversity benefits, providing a new opportunity for farmers and other stakeholders to contribute to climate change mitigation. The carbon farming framework can also serve as an interesting business model for additional income to farmers, while involving diverse actors such as certification bodies, auditors, tech industry, and creating new jobs. By promoting sustainable land use practices, the CRCF regulation can help sequester carbon, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve soil health. This presentation will discuss these EU soil policies in detail, with a specific focus on the role and activities of the EU Soil Observatory (EUSO). Overall, the presentation will show how the EU soil policies and the EUSO are advancing the data, knowledge and tools on soils and leading the transition towards healthy soils in the EU.

Using soil classification to improve interpretation of biological soil health indicators

Soil biota can sustain a wide range of functions and as such are intrinsically connected to soil health, which is defined as the capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem and land-use boundaries. Land use, soil management and land degradation can affect soil biodiversity and ultimately soil health. Soil fauna is an integral part of soil biodiversity connected at various levels of the food web with other important soil organisms such as bacteria and fungi. Nematodes are ubiquitous organisms sensitive to disturbances, and can be divided into functional groups based on feeding preferences and life-history strategies. Mites and collembola are two groups of microarthropods that are sensitive to land use change and soil management. These different groups of organisms can be used as indicators of soil biodiversity and health and can be measured with both morphological and molecular methods. Molecular methods offer great advantages compared to morphological methods, such as increase throughput and decrease costs and expertise needed for analysis, however only few studies have compared the information coming from both analyses. The objective of this study is to compare results of nematodes and microarthopods characterization obtained from morphological and eDNA methods in the framework of the European project SOILGUARD. To achieve this, nematodes, acari and collembola community characteristics have been assessed in seven European NUTS regions with different land use (forest, grassland and arable land), management (clearcutting vs continuous cover, grass monoculture vs grass-clover mix, organic vs conventional agriculture), pedo-climatic (texture, climate) characteristics, and land degradation gradient (organic matter levels). Soi fauna communities have been analysed with traditional morphological characterisation after extraction from soil and molecular methods with direct eDNA extraction from soil. Fauna-based soil health indices based on their abundance were calculated with information coming from both assessment methods. Results show disagreement between the two methods. More details about the outcome of this comparison will be presented and discussed during the conference.

Urban green space management is shifting from intensive maintenance toward sustainable practices in response to climate change and biodiversity loss. While reduced management intensity can enhance ecosystem services such as soil carbon storage, its impacts on overall soil health have been studied less extensively. We evaluated soil health using a composite index of key physical and chemical soil properties across six urban green space types (woody stands, single trees, hedges, wildflower meadows, shrubs, and short-cut lawns) in Giessen, Germany. High-resolution digital orthophotos were used to map Land Use/Land Cover. Soil samples were collected from 120 sites at three depths (0–1, 1–10, and 10–30 cm), totaling 360 samples. Significant differences were observed among green space types in soil health indicators, including soil organic carbon, nitrogen stocks, SOM/clay, C/N, Soil Stability Index, and macronutrient levels. Less intensively managed areas, such as woody stands and wildflower meadows, showed higher soil health status than intensively managed lawns (43.1, 32.5, and 21.7, respectively). Converting 100 m² of lawn to wildflower meadows could increase carbon storage, the key driver of the composite index, by approximately 160 kg. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) (CFI = 0.94) showed that both current and historical green space types like woody stands (β = 0.51), hedges (β= 0.22), wildflower meadows (β= 0.05), and past woody stands (β= 0.31) influence soil health. These findings support the development of urban soil health maps and underscore the value of sustainable green space management in enhancing urban soil health and long-term carbon storage. • Composite index assessed soil health across six urban green space types. • Woody vegetation showed superior soil structure and high carbon storage. • Short-cut lawns were linked to compaction and low soil organic matter. • Improved management could enhance carbon sequestration in short-cut lawns. • Soil health maps identified priority areas for sustainable green space planning.

Soil health is a critical factor in agricultural productivity and ecological sustainability, particularly in areca nut cultivation, where it directly impacts crop yields and long-term farming practices. This study aims to predict areca nut crop yields by analysing essential soil parameters, including microbial diversity and nutrient composition. Soil samples were collected from areca nut fields and analysed using high-throughput laboratory methods to evaluate biological, chemical, and physical properties comprehensively. Key microbial taxa such as Pyrinomonadaceae, Nitrososphaeraceae, and Candidatus Udaeobacter were identified as significant indicators of soil health due to their roles in nutrient cy cling and soil fertility. Sophisticated machine learning algorithms, such as Random Forest (RF), XG Boost and Support Vector Machine (SVM), were used to model the data, thus making precise predictions of crop yields from intricate datasets. The study highlights the importance of soil health, microbial diversity, and nutrient status for sustainable farming methods. The research shows that microbial structure, along with the availability of nutrients, plays a key role in influencing crop productivity. Farmers can make better decisions about crop planning, resource allocation, and soil management by using predictive models. In order to promote sustainable agriculture, reduce environmental impacts, and increase resource efficiency, this work integrates machine learning and sophisticated soil analysis. The technique offers a potent tool for improving areca nut cultivation results and supports global initiatives to guarantee the long-term productivity of soil and ecological health.

Soil health is fundamental to sustainable agriculture, underpinning crop yield, environmental resilience, and long-term ecosystem stability. Modern agricultural practices, marked by excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers, monoculture, and high ploughing, have led to significant soil deterioration, necessitating innovative approaches to restore and maintain soil health. This study analyzed sustainable approaches to augment soil health and boost crop quality in contemporary agricultural systems. Maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil is crucial for its health, attainable via several agronomic methods. Methods including crop rotation, cover cropping, no-till farming, carbon farming, conservation agriculture (CA), and the use of organic amendments were examined for their efficacy in restoring soil structure, enhancing organic matter, and fostering biodiversity. These projects aim to conserve and improve soil ecosystems by integrating agricultural techniques with ecological principles, so assuring long-term production and environmental stability. Improving soil health will enhance soil functions, reinforcing the notion that augmenting soil organic carbon (SOC) is essential. This research established that conservation tillage is superior to conventional tillage regarding soil health, a subject that remains contentious among scientists and farmers, and that different tillage methods demonstrate unique interactions. These solutions would improve soil health by integrating the management of plant, soil, microbial, and human interactions.

Nematodes are versatile bioindicators of the soil food web in both agricultural and natural ecosystems. Multiple nematode‐based indices (NBIs), derived from morphological, life history and community traits, provide invaluable information on various aspects of soil health. However, a standardised approach is required to explicitly link NBIs to the soil health concept. Moreover, unifying all NBIs into a single quantitative index could offer a more comprehensive and straightforward bioindicator for soil health. The ecological foundations for individual NBIs have been well established, but a single standardised bioindicator for soil microfaunal communities including nematodes, remains absent. Here, we integrated existing knowledge on NBIs into an innovative framework for quantitatively assessing soil health and ecosystem functions. Moreover, we propose a new Nematode Soil Health (NSH) index which summarises all NBIs into a single quantitative bioindicator. The framework was tested with five case datasets covering different soil types, depths, land uses and seasonal variations. Results for Datasets 1 and 2 indicated no significant difference in NSH values among soil types (Ferrosol, Chromosol and Vertosol) but significantly greater NSH in topsoil compared to subsoil layers. Dataset 3 revealed that soil amendments with fauna significantly increased the NSH index compared to defaunated soils, supporting the role of soil faunal communities in maintaining soil health. The NSH index (in Dataset 4) was also significantly higher in perennial pastures than annual croplands and exhibited (in Dataset 5) seasonal variation, with higher values in spring compared to autumn. Although this framework requires further calibration, testing and standardisation on more nematode community datasets, it could be combined with quantitative estimations or graphical representations of NBIs to provide additional information relevant to soil health conditions. The NSH index has the potential to foster the practical application of NBIs in soil health assessment programs, enhancing their adoption by practitioners and farmers.

Lack of adoption of soil health–promoting practices (SHPPs) leaves soil vulnerable to erosion, exacerbating flooding and contributing to high nutrient and sediment levels in surface waters. To aid in the adoption of SHPPs, changes in soil health need to be measured and related to things that both clearly and directly matter to farmers and stakeholders, yet soil scientists still grapple with which indicators to measure when assessing soil health. Useful indicators of soil health show changes in soil function resulting from changes in soil management, are measurable, and have clear and direct value to their target audience. These “linking indicators” need to be identified in context for successful promotion of SHPPs. We collected data from two focus groups of farmers in the Brazos River Watershed, TX, who had either adopted SHPPs or who had not. Content analysis of focus group transcripts revealed soil health was an important part of a farmer's stewardship ethic. Farmers perceived that water management, organic matter, yield, and biomass were meaningful indicators of soil health that benefited their enterprise. However, using yield and biomass alone has the potential to create a “false positive” for soil health. When farmers chose their management practices, two themes interacted with farmer concerns for soil health: profitability and social interactions. This work provides context and recommended linking indicators for soil scientists to use for communication with farmers. Researchers and policymakers should be aware of these interactions if efforts to promote SHPP adoption are to be successful.

Examining links between soil management, soil health, and public benefits in agricultural landscapes: An Australian perspective

Soil Health refers to the ecological equilibrium and the functionality of a soil and its capacity to maintain a well balanced ecosystem with high biodiversity above and below surface, and productivity. To understand and use soil health as a tool for sustainability, physical, chemical, and biological properties must be employed to verify which respond to the soil use and management within a desired timescale. Attributes with a rapid response to natural or anthropogenic actions are considered good indicators of soil health. Among the physical indicators, soil texture, aggregation, moisture, porosity, and bulk density have been used, while among chemical indicators total C and N, mineral nutrients, organic matter, cation exchange capacity, among others are well established. However, most of them generally have a slow response, when compared to the biological ones, such as microbial biomass C and N, biodiversity, soil enzymes, soil respiration, etc., in addition to macro and mesofauna. Thus, a systemic approach based on different kinds of indicators (physical, chemical and biological) in assessing soil health would be safer than using only one kind of attribute. Many human activities have caused desertification, loss of biodiversity, disruption of aggregates, loss of organic matter and nutrients, among others. Today, it is imperious to maintain soil health and productivity with increasing emphasis on reforestation and recuperation of degraded areas through the use of organic amendments, reintroduction of plants, soil fauna and microorganisms. This review focused on an integrative view on indicators of soil health to be used as tools for prediction of sustainability in production systems.

Core Ideas Soil health metrics were not differentiated in long-term agronomic trials. Soil health tests produced different results and were not consistent with management. Soil health indicators should be tested in different agroecological regions. Recent soil tests evaluating “soil health” on a broad scale may not properly consider the intrinsic limitations of soil properties, and have not been assessed in regionally unique soil conditions. To evaluate three soil tests in North Carolina, we used long-term agronomic management trials from three distinct physiographic regions: mountain (22 yr), piedmont (32 yr), and coastal plain (17 yr). Mountain and coastal plain trials included combinations of organic or chemical management with or without tillage; the piedmont trial included nine different tillage treatments. Soil samples were collected and submitted for analysis as recommended by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Haney soil health test (HSHT), and Cornell comprehensive assessment of soil health (CASH). Plant nutrient concentrations varied but were still sufficient for crops. The CASH physical soil indicators, such as surface hardness and aggregate stability, were not statistically different, regardless of tillage intensity or management. Biological soil indicators (e.g., CO2 respiration) responded differently to management, but this differentiation was inconsistent among locations and tests. Despite many years of conservation management, the CASH results described mountain soils as “low” or “very low” soil health for all but no-till organic management, which received a “medium” score. The HSHT results considered soil from all but moldboard plowing (piedmont) to be in good health. Finally, there was no correlation between soil health tests and crop yields from North Carolina soils. Soil health tests should be calibrated to better differentiate among soil management effects that vary depending on intrinsic soil limitations.