Estimating surrogates, utility graphs and indicator sets for soil capacity and security assessments using legacy data

Wartini Ng; Sandra J. Evangelista; José Padarian; Julio Pachon; Tom O’Donoghue; Peipei Xue; Nicolas Francos; Alex B. McBratney

doi:10.1071/SR23138

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Previous Next Contents Vol 62(2)

Estimating surrogates, utility graphs and indicator sets for soil capacity and security assessments using legacy data

Wartini Ng

^A ^* , Sandra J. Evangelista ^A , José Padarian ^A , Julio Pachon ^A , Tom O’Donoghue ^A , Peipei Xue ^A , Nicolas Francos ^A and Alex B. McBratney ^A

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A Sydney Institute of Agriculture, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia.

^* Correspondence to: Wartini.ng@sydney.edu.au

Handling Editor: Richard Harper

Soil Research 62, SR23138 https://doi.org/10.1071/SR23138

Submitted: 12 July 2023 Accepted: 23 January 2024 Published: 8 February 2024

Abstract

Context

Legacy data from prior studies enable preliminary analysis for soil security assessment which will inform future research questions.

Aims

This study aims to utilise the soil security assessment framework (SSAF) to evaluate the capacity of soil in fulfilling various roles and understand the underlying drivers.

Methods

The framework entails: (1) defining a combination of role(s) × dimension(s) and identifying a target indicator (a soil property that can be used to evaluate a particular role × dimension combination) or a surrogate indicator (an alternative indicator when there is not a clear target indicator); (2) transforming the indicator into a unitless score (ranging from 0 to 1) using a utility graph based on expert knowledge; (3) fitting the remaining soil properties (potential indicators) into utility graphs and weighing them using (a) ordination and (b) regression method. The application of this framework is demonstrated in evaluating two soil roles: nutrient storage and habitat for biodiversity (with pH and microbial DNA Shannon’s diversity index as surrogates, respectively) for an area in the lower Hunter Valley region, New South Wales, Australia.

Key results

The regression model provides utility estimates that were similar to those obtained from surrogates, in comparison to the utility derived from the ordination model.

Conclusions

This study provides a methodological pathway to examine the capacity and drivers of fulfilling different soil roles. The standardisation of this method opens the door to a complete quantification under the SSAF.

Implications

Indicators derived from a legacy dataset can be used for soil security assessment.

Keywords: habitat for biodiversity, indicator, indicator selection, legacy dataset, minimum dataset, nutrient storage, ordination, principal component analysis, regression, soil security assessment framework, surrogates, utility graphs.

References

Abadi M, Agarwal A, Barham P, Brevdo E, Chen Z, Citro C, Corrado GS, Davis A, Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Goodfellow I, Harp A, Irving G, Isard M, Jia Y, Jozefowicz R, Kaiser L, Kudlur M, Levenberg J, Mane D, Monga R, Moore S, Murray D, Olah C, Schuster M, Shlens J, Steiner B, Sutskever I, Talwar K, Tucker P, Vanhoucke V, Vasudevan V, Viegas F, Vinyals O, Warden P, Wattenberg M, Wicke M, Yu Y, Zheng X (2016) TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems. arXiv preprint.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Allen DE, Singh BP, Dalal RC (2011) Soil health indicators under climate change: a review of current knowledge. In ‘Soil health and climate change’. (Eds BP Singh, AL Cowie, KY Chan) pp. 25–45. (Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg)

Andrews SS, Carroll CR (2001) Designing a soil quality assessment tool for sustainable agroecosystem management. Ecological Applications 11(6), 1573-1585.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Mitchell JP (2002a) A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 90(1), 25-45.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Andrews SS, Mitchell JP, Mancinelli R, Karlen DL, Hartz TK, Horwath WR, Pettygrove GS, Scow KM, Munk DS (2002b) On-farm assessment of soil quality in California’s Central Valley. Agronomy Journal 94(1), 12-23.
| Google Scholar |

Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Cambardella CA (2004) The soil management assessment framework: a quantitative soil quality evaluation method. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68(6), 1945-1962.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Arshad MA, Martin S (2002) Identifying critical limits for soil quality indicators in agro-ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 88(2), 153-160.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Bai Z, Caspari T, Gonzalez MR, Batjes NH, Mader P, Bunemann EK, de Goede R, Brussaard L, Xu M, Ferreira CSS, Reintam E, Fan H, Mihelic R, Glavan M, Toth Z (2018) Effects of agricultural management practices on soil quality: a review of long-term experiments for Europe and China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 265, 1-7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Bünemann EK, Bongiorno G, Bai Z, Creamer RE, De Deyn G, de Goede R, Fleskens L, Geissen V, Kuyper TW, Mäder P, Pulleman M, Sukkel W, van Groenigen JW, Brussaard L (2018) Soil quality – a critical review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 120, 105-125.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Dixon P (2003) VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science 14(6), 927-930.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Doran JW, Parkin TB (1997) Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set. In ‘Methods for assessing soil quality’. (Eds JW Doran, AJ Jones) pp. 25–37. (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)

Edgar RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26(19), 2460-2461.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Edgar RC (2013) UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature Methods 10(10), 996-998.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Evangelista SJ, Field DJ, McBratney AB, Minasny B, Ng W, Padarian J, Román Dobarco M, Wadoux AMJ-C (2023a) Soil security – strategizing a sustainable future for soil. In ‘Advances in agronomy’. (Ed. DL Sparks) pp. 1–70. (Academic Press)

Evangelista SJ, Field DJ, McBratney AB, Minasny B, Ng W, Padarian J, Román Dobarco M, Wadoux AMJC (2023b) A proposal for the assessment of soil security: soil functions, soil services and threats to soil. Soil Security 10, 100086.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Fine AK, van Es HM, Schindelbeck RR (2017) Statistics, scoring functions, and regional analysis of a comprehensive soil health database. Soil Science Society of America Journal 81(3), 589-601.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Guerra CA, Heintz-Buschart A, Sikorski J, Chatzinotas A, Guerrero-Ramírez N, Cesarz S, Beaumelle L, Rillig MC, Maestre FT, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Buscot F, Overmann J, Patoine G, Phillips HRP, Winter M, Wubet T, Küsel K, Bardgett RD, Cameron EK, Cowan D, Grebenc T, Marín C, Orgiazzi A, Singh BK, Wall DH, Eisenhauer N (2020) Blind spots in global soil biodiversity and ecosystem function research. Nature Communications 11(1), 3870.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Hartmann M, Six J (2023) Soil structure and microbiome functions in agroecosystems. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 4(1), 4-18.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Huang J, McBratney AB, Malone BP, Field DJ (2018) Mapping the transition from pre-European settlement to contemporary soil conditions in the Lower Hunter Valley, Australia. Geoderma 329, 27-42.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Huber S, Prokop G, Arrouays D, Banko G, Bispo A, Jones RJA, Kibblewhite MG, Lexer W, Möller A, Rickson RJ, Shishkov T, Stephens M, Toth G, Van den Akker JJH, Varallyay G, Verheijen FGA, Jones AR (2008) Environmental assessment of soil for monitoring. Volume I: indicators & criteria. European Commission.

Hunter JD (2007) Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering 9(3), 90-95.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Karlen DL, Eash NS, Unger PW (1992) Soil and crop management effects on soil quality indicators. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7(1–2), 48-55.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Karlen DL, Veum KS, Sudduth KA, Obrycki JF, Nunes MR (2019) Soil health assessment: past accomplishments, current activities, and future opportunities. Soil and Tillage Research 195, 104365.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Lehmann J, Bossio DA, Kogel-Knabner I, Rillig MC (2020) The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1(10), 544-553.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Lundberg SM, Lee S-I (2017) A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In ‘Advances in neural information processing systems’. pp. 4765–4774. (Curran Associates, Inc.) Available at https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/8a20a8621978632d76c43dfd28b67767-Abstract.html

McBratney A, Field DJ, Koch A (2014) The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma 213, 203-213.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Moebius-Clune BN, Moebius-Clune DJ, Gugino BK, Idowu OJ, Schindelbeck RR, Ristow AJ, van Es HM, Thies JE, Shayler HA, McBride MB, Wolfe DW, Abawi GS (2016) ‘Comprehensive assessment of soil health: the Cornell framework manual.’ (Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA)

Nunes MR, Veum KS, Parker PA, Holan SH, Karlen DL, Amsili JP, van Es HM, Wills SA, Seybold CA, Moorman TB (2021) The soil health assessment protocol and evaluation applied to soil organic carbon. Soil Science Society of America Journal 85(4), 1196-1213.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Padarian J, McBratney AB, Minasny B (2020) Game theory interpretation of digital soil mapping convolutional neural networks. Soil 6(2), 389-397.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Pathak H (2010) Trend of fertility status of Indian soils. Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences 2(1), 10-12.
| Google Scholar |

Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay E (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, 2825-2830.
| Google Scholar |

Python Software Foundation (2021) ‘Python language reference.’ (Python Software Foundation)

Rayment GE, Lyons DJ (2011) ‘Soil chemical methods: Australasia.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Australia)

Román Dobarco M, McBratney A, Minasny B, Malone B (2021) A modelling framework for pedogenon mapping. Geoderma 393, 115012.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Sanchez PA (2019) Functional capability classification. In ‘Properties and management of soils in the tropics’. 2nd edn. (Ed. PA Sanchez) pp. 120–133. (Cambridge University Press)

Sanchez PA, Palm CA, Buol SW (2003) Fertility capability soil classification: a tool to help assess soil quality in the tropics. Geoderma 114(3), 157-185.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Schoenholtz SH, Van Miegroet H, Burger JA (2000) A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management 138(1–3), 335-356.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Seabold S, Perktold J (2010) Statsmodels: econometric and statistical modeling with python. In ‘Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference’. Austin, TX. (SciPy Org)

Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27(3), 379-423.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Shukla MK, Lal R, Ebinger M (2006) Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil and Tillage Research 87(2), 194-204.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Spiegel H, Zavattaro L, Guzmán G, D’Hose T, Pecio A, Lehtinen T, Schlatter N, ten Berge H, Grignani C (2015) Compatibility of agricultural management practices and mitigation and soil health: impacts of soil management practices on crop productivity, on indicators for climate change mitigation, and on the chemical, physical and biological quality of soil. Deliverable reference number D3.371, CATCH-C Project (www.catch-c.eu).

Stewart ZP, Pierzynski GM, Middendorf BJ, Prasad PVV (2020) Approaches to improve soil fertility in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Experimental Botany 71(2), 632-641.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Walkley A, Black IA (1934) An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37(1), 29-38.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wall DH, Nielsen UN, Six J (2015) Soil biodiversity and human health. Nature 528(7580), 69-76.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Wienhold BJ, Karlen DL, Andrews SS, Stott DE (2009) Protocol for indicator scoring in the soil management assessment framework (SMAF). Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24(4), 260-266.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Xue P, Minasny B, McBratney A, Wilson NL, Tang Y, Luo Y (2023) Distinctive role of soil type and land use in driving bacterial communities and carbon cycling functions down soil profiles. Catena 223, 106903.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Zhang J, Li Y, Jia J, Liao W, Amsili JP, Schneider RL, van Es HM, Li Y, Zhang J (2023) Applicability of soil health assessment for wheat-maize cropping systems in smallholders’ farmlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 353, 108558.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Zornoza R, Mataix-Solera J, Guerrero C, Arcenegui V, García-Orenes F, Mataix-Beneyto J, Morugán A (2007) Evaluation of soil quality using multiple lineal regression based on physical, chemical and biochemical properties. Science of The Total Environment 378(1–2), 233-237.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |