{"type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [{"id": "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.257", "type": "Feature", "geometry": null, "properties": {"license": "Open Access", "updated": "2026-05-30T16:17:19Z", "type": "Journal Article", "created": "2018-08-23", "title": "Assessment of promising agricultural management practices", "description": "iSQAPER project - Interactive Soil Quality Assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural Productivity and Environmental Resilience - aims to develop an app to advise farmers on selecting the best Agriculture Management Practice (AMPs) to improve soil quality. For this purpose, a soil quality index has to be developed to account for the changes in soil quality as impacted by the implementation of the AMPs. Some promising AMPs have been suggested over the time to prevent soil degradation. These practices have been randomly adopted by farmers but which practices are most used by farmers and where they are mostly adopted remains unclear. This study is part of the iSQAPER project with the specific aims: 1) map the current distribution of previously selected 18 promising AMPs in several pedo-climatic regions and farming systems located in ten and four study site areas (SSA) along Europe and China, respectively; and 2) identify the soil threats occurring in those areas. In each SSA, farmers using promising AMP's were identified and questionnaires were used to assess farmer's perception on soil threats significance in the area. 138 plots/farms using 18 promising AMPs, were identified in Europe (112) and China (26).Results show that promising AMPs used in Europe are Crop rotation (15%), Manuring & Composting (15%) and Min-till (14%), whereas in China are Manuring & Composting (18%), Residue maintenance (18%) and Integrated pest and disease management (12%). In Europe, soil erosion is the main threat in agricultural Mediterranean areas while soil-borne pests and diseases is more frequent in the SSAs from France and The Netherlands. In China, soil erosion, SOM decline, compaction and poor soil structure are among the most significant. This work provides important information for policy makers and the development of strategies to support and promote agricultural management practices with benefits for soil quality.", "keywords": ["0301 basic medicine", "2. Zero hunger", "S1 Agriculture (General) / mez\u0151gazdas\u00e1g \u00e1ltal\u00e1ban", "04 agricultural and veterinary sciences", "Environment", "15. Life on land", "03 medical and health sciences", "Sustainability", "13. Climate action", "Farming systems; Sustainability; Soil threats; Environment", "Farming systems", "Soil threats", "0401 agriculture", " forestry", " and fisheries", "504 - Ciencias del medio ambiente"]}, "links": [{"href": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.257"}, {"rel": "related", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main/items/Science%20of%20The%20Total%20Environment", "name": "related record", "description": "related record", "type": "application/json"}, {"rel": "self", "type": "application/geo+json", "title": "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.257", "name": "item", "description": "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.257", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main/items/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.257"}, {"rel": "collection", "type": "application/json", "title": "Collection", "name": "collection", "description": "Collection", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main"}], "time": {"date": "2019-02-01T00:00:00Z"}}, {"id": "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178646", "type": "Feature", "geometry": null, "properties": {"updated": "2026-05-30T16:17:23Z", "type": "Journal Article", "created": "2025-02-04", "title": "Assessing and mapping changes in soil ecosystem services and soil threats in agroecosystems through scenario-based approaches \u2013 A systematic review", "description": "Scenario analysis plays a central role in estimating how global changes affect the relationships linking ecosystem conditions and functioning to human needs. This is particularly true for agroecosystems, which are pivotal to ensure sustainable land planning, ecological management and food security strategies. Soils are key providers of multiple ecosystem services (ES) in agroecosystems but they are very sensitive to global drivers such as changes in climate, land use and cover. How agroecosystems should achieve sustainability, through optimizing soil capacity to supply ES while limiting the occurrence of threats, is a priority of EU policy agendas. Nevertheless, there is currently a lack of a comprehensive framework of scenario-based approaches to assess changes in soil ES (SES) and soil threats (ST). As a part of the project SERENA funded by the European Joint Program on Agricultural Soil Management, this study aims to: i) understand how drivers of global change are commonly studied in the scientific literature; ii) identify how some SES and ST are assessed in scenario-based approaches; iii) provide a preliminary discussion on how soil properties are represented in these approaches. Through a systematic review of 230 published articles related to seven SES and ten ST, this study highlights that not all SES and ST are considered with the same frequency and geographic distribution in scenario-based approaches. Despite a great methodological variability in the assessment and mapping of SES and ST, dominant methodological trends can be identified. SES are mapped more frequently than ST and, specific SES appear more disposed to spatially explicit assessments than others. Due to its novelty and complexity, research on this topic is limited to a small subset of ST or SES and projections of the combined impacts of climate, land use and management changes on multiple ST and SES should be a scientific priority to help policy makers.", "keywords": ["Conservation of Natural Resources", "550", "Scenario-based", "[SDE.MCG]Environmental Sciences/Global Changes", "Climate Change", "Agriculture", "333", "Soil ecosystem services", "Soil ecosystem services", " Soil threats", " Indicators", " Scenario-based", " Agroecosystems", "Soil", "[SDE]Environmental Sciences", "Soil threats", "Indicators", "Agroecosystems", "Ecosystem", "Environmental Monitoring"], "contacts": [{"organization": "Scammacca, Ottone, Montagne, David, Asins-Velis, Sabina, Bondi, Giulia, Boru\u030avka, Lubos\u030c, Buttafuoco, Gabriele, Cadero, Alice, Calzolari, Costanza, Cousin, Isabelle, Czuba, Martina, Foldal, Cecilie, Malli, Armin, Klimkowicz-Pawlas, Agnieszka, Kukk, Liia, Lumini, Erica, Medina-Rolda\u0301n, Eduardo, Michel, Kerstin, Molina, Mari\u0301a Jose\u0301, O'Sullivan, Lilian, Pindral, Sylwia, Putku, Elsa, Kitzler, Barbara, Walter, Christian,", "roles": ["creator"]}]}, "links": [{"href": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178646"}, {"rel": "related", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main/items/Science%20of%20The%20Total%20Environment", "name": "related record", "description": "related record", "type": "application/json"}, {"rel": "self", "type": "application/geo+json", "title": "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178646", "name": "item", "description": "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178646", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main/items/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.178646"}, {"rel": "collection", "type": "application/json", "title": "Collection", "name": "collection", "description": "Collection", "href": "https://repository.soilwise-he.eu/cat/collections/metadata:main"}], "time": {"date": "2025-02-01T00:00:00Z"}}, {"id": "10.1111/ejss.13476", "type": "Feature", "geometry": null, "properties": {"updated": "2026-05-30T16:19:20Z", "type": "Journal Article", "created": "2024-03-22", "title": "Do we speak one language on the way to sustainable soil management in Europe? A terminology check via an EU\u2010wide survey", "description": "Abstract

European soils are under increasing pressure, making it difficult to maintain the provision of soil ecosystem services (SESs). A better understanding of soil processes is needed to counteract soil threats (STs) and to promote sustainable soil management. The EJP SOIL programme of the EU provides a framework for the necessary research. However, different definitions of soil\uffe2\uff80\uff90related terms potentially lead to varied understandings of concepts. Furthermore, there are numerous indicators available to quantify STs or SESs. As unclear communication is a key barrier that hinders the implementation of research results into practice, this study aimed to answer the question about whether the terminology of large\uffe2\uff80\uff90scale initiatives is adequately understood within the soil\uffe2\uff80\uff90science community and non\uffe2\uff80\uff90research stakeholders. An online questionnaire was used to provide definitions for 33 soil\uffe2\uff80\uff90related terms in both scientific and plain language, as well as indicators for seven SESs and 11 STs. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with the definitions and indicators on a seven\uffe2\uff80\uff90grade Likert scale. The level of agreement was calculated as the percentage of ratings above 4, the neutral position. The survey was available from June to September 2023 and was distributed by a snowball approach. More than 260 stakeholders assessed the survey; 70% of respondents were researchers, and 15% were practitioners. Mean agreement levels for the definitions and indicators were generally high, at 85% and 78% respectively. However, it was apparent that the lowest agreement was found for terms that are relatively new, such as Ecosystem Services and Bundle, or unfamiliar for certain subgroups, such as ecological terms for stakeholders working at the farm scale. Due to their distinct majority, the results of this study primarily reflect the opinions of scientists. Thus, broad conclusions can only be drawn by comparing scientists with non\uffe2\uff80\uff90scientists. In this regard, the agreement was surprisingly high across all types of questions. The combined outcomes indicate that there is still a need to facilitate communication between stakeholders and to improve knowledge distribution strategies. Nevertheless, this study can support and be used by future projects and programmes, especially regarding the harmonization of terminology and methods. European soils are under increasing pressure, making it difficult to maintain the provision of soil ecosystem services (SESs). A better understanding of soil processes is needed to counteract soil threats (STs) and to promote sustainable soil management. The EJP SOIL programme of the EU provides a framework for the necessary research. However, different definitions of soil\uffe2\uff80\uff90related terms potentially lead to varied understandings of concepts. Furthermore, there are numerous indicators available to quantify STs or SESs. As unclear communication is a key barrier that hinders the implementation of research results into practice, this study aimed to answer the question about whether the terminology of large\uffe2\uff80\uff90scale initiatives is adequately understood within the soil\uffe2\uff80\uff90science community and non\uffe2\uff80\uff90research stakeholders. An online questionnaire was used to provide definitions for 33 soil\uffe2\uff80\uff90related terms in both scientific and plain language, as well as indicators for seven SESs and 11 STs. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with the definitions and indicators on a seven\uffe2\uff80\uff90grade Likert scale. The level of agreement was calculated as the percentage of ratings above 4, the neutral position. The survey was available from June to September 2023 and was distributed by a snowball approach. More than 260 stakeholders assessed the survey; 70% of respondents were researchers, and 15% were practitioners. Mean agreement levels for the definitions and indicators were generally high, at 85% and 78% respectively. However, it was apparent that the lowest agreement was found for terms that are relatively new, such as Ecosystem Services and Bundle , or unfamiliar for certain subgroups, such as ecological terms for stakeholders working at the farm scale. Due to their distinct majority, the results of this study primarily reflect the opinions of scientists. Thus, broad conclusions can only be drawn by comparing scientists with non\uffe2\uff80\uff90scientists. In this regard, the agreement was surprisingly high across all types of questions. The combined outcomes indicate that there is still a need to facilitate communication between stakeholders and to improve knowledge distribution strategies. Nevertheless, this study can support and be used by future projects and programmes, especially regarding the harmonization of terminology and methods.