Soil & Water Res., 2022, 17(1):45-58 | DOI: 10.17221/146/2021-SWR

Using soil quality indicators to assess their production and ecological functionsOriginal Paper

Jaroslava Janků ORCID...*,1, Markéta Kosánová1, Josef Kozák1, Tomáš Herza2, Jan Jehlička3, Mansoor Maitah4, Jan Vopravil5, Karel Němeček1, Daniel Toth6, Karel Jacko7, Radim Vácha5, Jana Poláková8
1 Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
2 Hydrosoft Veleslavín, Limited Liability Company, Prague, Czech Republic
3 Department of Environmental Geosciences, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
4 Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
5 Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation, Prague, Czech Republic
6 Department of Economics, Prague, University College of Business in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
7 Agrio ZS, Limited Liability Company, Hovorčovice, Czech Republic
8 Department of Agroecology and Crop Production, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

The project dealt with an evaluation of the soil quality in the Central Bohemian Region in the Czech Republic. The relevant attributes and characteristics were found regarding the soils in this selected area. Based on the data from soil probes, climate characteristics, soil production function and data on the land use, the characteristics, known as soil quality indicators, were selected. Then the soils were sorted into groups which indicated their suitability for the best land use and planning. The characteristics of the soils that contributed the most to the ecosystem services provided by this part of the environment were chosen as the soil quality indicators. In order to find out how the soils are able to provide ecosystem services, two types of approaches were used - the average score and the total amount of points gained. Maps indicating the soil quality were created using the ArcGIS program. At the same time, research on the differences in the quality in two different layers of the soil was carried out. In most cases, there was a decrease in the soil quality with an increasing depth. The results of this project can be used as a basis for a new soil valuation in the Czech Republic.

Keywords: indicators; soil characteristics; soil ecosystem services; soil protection; soil quality

Published: January 17, 2022  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Janků J, Kosánová M, Kozák J, Herza T, Jehlička J, Maitah M, et al.. Using soil quality indicators to assess their production and ecological functions. Soil & Water Res. 2022;17(1):45-58. doi: 10.17221/146/2021-SWR.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Anonymous (2011): Decree 48/2011 on the Establishment of Protection Classes. The Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic in line Act No. 334/1992 Coll., On the Protection of the Agricultural Land Fund. Available at https://www.sagit.cz/info/sb11048 (accessed Nov 26, 2021).
    2. Anonymous (2019): Evaluated Soil-Ecological Units. Prague, State Land Office. Available at https://www.spucr.cz/bpej (accessed Oct 27, 2021).
    3. Arshad M.A., Martin S. (2002): Identifying critical limits for soil quality indicators in agro-ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 88: 153-160. Go to original source...
    4. Bastida F., Zsolnay A., Hernández T., García C. (2008): Past, present and future of soil quality indices: A biological perspective. Geoderma, 147: 159-171. Go to original source...
    5. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Gaskin R.G., Sutton P., van den Belt M. (1997): The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260. Go to original source...
    6. Desaules A., Ammann S., Schwab P. (2010): Advances in long-term soil-pollution monitoring of Switzerland. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 173: 525-535. Go to original source...
    7. Drobnik T. (2019): Ecosystem Services and Soil Quality. [Doctoral Thesis.] Zurich, ETH Zürich Research Collection. Available at https://doi.org/10.3929/ethzb-000376809(accessed Nov 8, 2021).
    8. Drobnik T., Greiner L., Keller A., Grêt-Regamey A. (2018): Soil quality indicators - From soil functions to ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 94: 151-169. Go to original source...
    9. Džatko M., Hraško J., Linkeš V., Mašát K., Němeček J. (1979): Assessment of relative production capacity soils in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Plant Production, 25: 693-699. (in Czech)
    10. Fiala P. (2008): Models and Methods of Decision-making. 2nd Ed. Prague, Oeconomica. (in Czech)
    11. Fliessbach A., Oberholzer H.R., Gunst L., Mäder P. (2007): Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 118: 273-284. Go to original source...
    12. Geoportal.gov.cz (2014):Corine Land Cover 2012. Available at https://geoportal.gov.cz/web/guest/news?id=59550 (accessed Nov 8, 2021).
    13. Haines-Young R., Potschin-Young M. (2010): The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D.G., Frid Ch.L.J. (eds.): Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 110-139. Go to original source...
    14. Haslmayr H.P., Geitner C., Sutor G., Knoll A., Baumgarten A. (2016): Soil function evaluation in Austria - Development, concepts and examples. Geoderma, 264: 379-387. Go to original source...
    15. Hersperger A.M., Ioja C., Steiner F., Tudor C.A. (2015): Comprehensive consideration of conflicts in the land-use planning process: A conceptual contribution. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 10: 5-13.
    16. Janků J., Jakšík O., Kozák J., Marhoul A.M. (2016): Estimation of land loss in the Czech Republic in the near future. Soil and Water Research, 11: 155-162. Go to original source...
    17. Kopecký J. (1931): Scoring the Value of Arable Land in Czechoslovakia. Special Reprint from the Agricultural Archive, 22 (1-2). Prague, Political Printing House. (in Czech)
    18. Kozák J., Galušková I. (2010): Urban Template 4 (Prague). Prague, Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague.
    19. Kozák J., Němeček J., Jetmar M. (1996): The database of Soil Information System - PUGIS. Crop Production, 42: 529-534. (in Czech)
    20. Kozák J., Němeček J., Borůvka L., Lérová Z., Němeček K., Kodešová R., Janků J., Jacko K., Hladík J., Zádorová T. (2009): Soil Atlas of the Czech Republic. 2nd Ed. Prague, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague.
    21. Land. copernicus.eu (2018): Corine Land Cover 2018. Available at https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corineland-cover/clc2018 (accessed Nov 8, 2021).
    22. Mašát K., Němeček J., Džatko M. (1985): System of Point Valuation of Productivity of BPEJ. [System. MS, Final Report.] Prague, Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation. (in Czech)
    23. Mašát K., Svobodová D., Kohoutová L. (1986): Categorization of the Territory According to Agroecological Complexity. Sub-task: Deepening and Agronomic Use of the Agroecological Block of the Evaluating Information System of Czechoslovakia. Review number: SPEV 901.129.318.04.02. Prague, Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation. (in Czech)
    24. Novák P., Kohel J., Tomiška Z., Zlatušková S. (1995): Methodology for Determining the Point Value of the Soil (Task Output). Prague, Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation: 1-14. (in Czech)
    25. Oberholzer H.R., Freiermuth Knuchel R., Weisskopf P., Gaillard G. (2012): A novel method for soil quality in life cycle assessment using several soil indicators. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32: 639-649. Go to original source...
    26. O'Neill J., Walsh M. (2000): Landscape conflicts: preferences, identities and rights. Landscape Ecology, 15: 281-289. Go to original source...
    27. Ramík J. (1999): Multi-Criterion Decision-Making - Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP). Karviná, Silesian University. (in Czech)
    28. Saaty T.L. (2008): Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Extras, Serie A. Matematicas, 102: 251-318. Go to original source...
    29. Sáňka M., Materna J. (2004): Quality Indicators of Agricultural and Forest Soils in the Czech Republic. Prague, Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic. Available at https://www.mzp.cz/web/edice.nsf/CEFFC9BDDD360E2EC1256FAF0040EEF6/$file/indikatory_el.pdf (in Czech)
    30. Schloter M., Dilly O., Munch J.C. (2003): Indicators for evaluating soil quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98: 255-262. Go to original source...
    31. Shukla M.K., Lal R., Ebinger M. (2006): Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil and Tillage Research, 87: 194-204. Go to original source...
    32. TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Ecological and economic. Kumar P. (ed.). London, Washington, Earthscan.
    33. Veidemane K. (2019): Contribution of ecosystem services to achievement of the sustainable development goals. Proceedings, 30: 8. Go to original source...
    34. von der Dunk A., Grêt-Regamey A., Dalang T., Hersperger A.M. (2011): Defining a typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts - A case study from Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101: 149-156. Go to original source...
    35. Vopravil J., Novotný I., Khel T., Hladík J., Jacko K., Papaj V., Vašků Z., Vrabcová T., Pírková I., Rožnovský J., Havelková L., Huml J., Sekanina A., Novák P., Voltr V., Středa T., Kohoutová L., Poruba M., Czelis R., Janků J., Penížek V. (2011): Soil and its Evaluation in the Czech Republic, Part II. Prague, Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation. (in Czech)
    36. Wolff G. (2006): The Stuttgart Soil Protection Concept (BOKS). Stuttgart, Office for Environmental Protection. Available at http://www.nfp68.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/Wolff_Bodenschutzkonzept_Stuttgart_2006.pdf

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content