Browsing by Author "Bispo, Antonio"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparing LUCAS Soil and national systems: Towards a harmonized European Soil monitoring network
    (Elsevier, 2024) Froger, Claire; Tondini, Elena ; Arrouays, Dominique; Oorts, Katrien; Poeplau, Christopher; Wetterlind, Johanna; Putku, Elsa; Saby, Nicolas P.A.; Fantappiè, Maria; Styc, Quentin; Chenu, Claire; Salomez, Joost; Callewaert, Seth; Vanwindekens, Frédéric M.; Huyghebaert, Bruno; Herinckx, Julien; Heilek, Stefan; Harbo, Laura Sofie; De Carvalho Gomes, Lucas; Lázaro-López, Alberto; Rodriguez, Jose Antonio; Pindral, Sylwia; Smreczak, Bożena; Benő, András; Bakacsi, Zsofia; Teuling, Kees; van Egmond, Fenny; Hutár, Vladimír; Pálka, Boris; Abrahám, Dominik; Bispo, Antonio
    A recent assessment states that 60–70% of soils in Europe are considered degraded. Protecting such valuable resource require knowledge on soil status through monitoring systems. In Europe, different types of monitoring networks currently exist in parallel. Many EU Member states (MS) developed their own national soil information monitoring system (N-SIMS), some being in place for decades. In parallel in 2009, the European Commission extended the periodic Land Use/Land Cover Area Frame Survey (LUCAS) led by EUROSTAT to sample and analyse the main properties of topsoil in EU in order to develop a homogeneous dataset for EU. Both sources of information are needed to support European policies on soil health evaluation. However, a question remains whether the assessment obtained by using soil properties from both monitoring programs (N-SIMS and LUCAS Soil) are comparable, and what could be the limitations of using either one dataset or the other. Conducted in the context of European Joint Programme (EJP) SOIL, this study shows the results of a comparison between N-SIMS and LUCAS Soil programs among 12 different EU member states including BE, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, DE, HU, IT, NL, PL, SE and SK. The comparison was done on: (i) the sampling strategies including site densities, land cover and soil type distribution; (ii) the statistical distribution of three soil properties (organic carbon, pH and clay content); (iii) two potential indicators of soil quality (i.e. OC/Clay ratio and pH classes). The results underlined substantial differences in soil properties statistical distributions between N-SIMS and LUCAS Soil in many member states, particularly for woodland and grassland soils, affecting the evaluation of soil health using indicators. Such differences might be explained by both the monitoring strategy and sampling or analytical protocols exposing the potential effect of data source on European and national policies. The results demonstrate the need to work towards data harmonization and in the light of the Soil Monitoring Law, to carefully design the future of soil monitoring in Europe taking into account both LUCAS Soil and N-SIMS considering the significant impact of the monitoring strategies and protocols on soil health indicators.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Do we speak one language on the way to sustainable soil management in Europe? A terminology check via an EU-wide survey.
    (John Wiley & Sons, 2024) Weninger, Thomas; Ramler, David; Bondi, Giulia; Asins, Sabina; O'Sullivan, Lilian; Assennato, Francesca; Astover, Alar; Bispo, Antonio ; Borůvka, Luboˇs ; Buttafuoco, Gabriele ; Calzolari, Costanza ; Castanheira, Nadia ; Cousin, Isabelle ; Elsen, Erik van den; Foldal, Cecilie ; Hessel, Rudi ; Kadžiulienė, Zydrė ; Kukk, Liia ; Molina, Maria J. ; Montagne, David ; Oorts, Katrien ; Pindral, Sylwia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1065-8004; Ungaro, Fabrizio ; Klimkowicz-Pawlas, Agnieszka https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4529-5274
    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-related 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-scale initiatives is adequately understood within the soil-science community and nonresearch stakeholders. An online questionnaire was used to provide definitions for 33 soil-related 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-grade 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-scientists. 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.