Browsing by Author "Cornu, Sophie"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item A Multiple Soil Threats Assessment for Europe by 2050(Wiley, 2026-06-24) Coblinski, João Augusto; Cornu, Sophie; Pindral, Sylwia; Borůvka, Lubos; Medina-Roldán, Eduardo; Reyes-Rojas, Jessica; Saby, Nicolas P. A.European soils are exposed to multiple interacting soil threats (STs), challenging the European Commission's objective of restoring healthy soils by 2050. This study provides the first integrated EU-scale projection of four major soil threats—soil compaction, soil organic carbon loss, soil erosion and soil sealing—under two IPCC climate scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5), while accounting for land-use change. Unlike previous assessments that examined threats separately, this research analyzes their co-occurrence through the concept of “soil threat bundles”. Using digital soil mapping and a k-means clustering approach, the study identified 20 ST bundles and their spatial variation across Europe by 2050. Results show that around 40% of EU soils will not face significant threats, while approximately one-third will experience only one major threat. 22% of soils will be exposed to two simultaneous threats, and between less than 1% (SSP1-2.6) and more than 5% (SSP5-8.5) will experience three interacting threats. Overall, nearly 60% of EU soils could be affected by at least one threat by 2050, a proportion comparable to current estimates of unhealthy soils in Europe. The findings highlight strong differences between climate scenarios. Under SSP1-2.6, land-use change is the second main driver of soil threat distribution. In contrast, under SSP5-8.5, climate change becomes the second main driver, intensifying soil compaction, SOC loss, and erosion, particularly in Central Europe, western England, and the Pyrenees. The study emphasizes the importance of integrated assessments to design targeted soil protection policies within the EU Green Deal and Soil Strategy for 2050.Item From Soil Threats to Soil Health: Prevention or Remediation(Wiley, 2026-05-14) Suleymanov, Azamat; Cornu, Sophie; Coblinski, João Augusto; Montagne, David; Hessel, Rudi; Cousin, Isabelle; Bispo, Antonio; Saby, Nicolas P. A.While soil threats and soil health are two interrelated, sometimes confused, concepts, we demonstrated here that a clear separa-tion between these two concepts associated to a mapping of both soil threats and soil health is necessary. Soil threats are com-monly defined as processes that may degrade the soil properties, functions or services, while soil health describes the state of thesoil at a given moment in time. As a consequence, an unhealthy soil is a soil which is degraded compared to a reference. Mappingsoil threats or soil health results then in different but complementary views of the situation. Mapping soil threats informs ac-tions to prevent soil degradation, while mapping soil health indicates the capacity of soils to provide functions and places whereremediation is needed. In this study, we demonstrated the differences between these concepts by comparing projection mapsfor 2050 of soil threats and soil health by considering soil compaction and loss of soil organic carbon (SOC) as soil threats andbulk density and SOC stock as basic soil properties to evaluate both soil threat and soil health in terms of the above-mentionedtwo soil descriptors. These maps were produced by digital soil mapping, taking into account changes in climate and land use inthe European Union (EU). Soil threats were mapped using soil property change between 1980 and 2050 as indicators, that is, adecrease in SOC stocks for SOC loss and increase in soil bulk density for compaction. For soil health assessment, as referencesare needed, we defined soil areas that could be considered as homogeneous by combining soil, climate and land use informationand defined for each area a threshold for soil health based on a quantiles approach. As a result, the obtained soil threat and healthmaps were very different, as healthy soils can be under threat but not have crossed the threshold yet, while unhealthy soils maynot be under threat anymore if no more degradation occurs. These results demonstrate that reading a map requires a good priorunderstanding of the meaning of the indicators used in order to be able to interpret it in terms of threat or health and to be ableto select appropriate metrics, which will not be the same in both cases. Indeed, while soil health maps identify degraded areaswhere the soil lost part or all its capacity to provide functions and that need remediation, soil threat maps offer vital informationabout potential vulnerabilities and areas requiring intervention or management strategies.Item Monitoring Systems of Agricultural Soils Across Europe Regarding the Upcoming European Soil Monitoring Law(Wiley, 2025) Mason, Eloïse; Cornu, Sophie; Arrouays, Dominique; Fantappiè, Maria; Jones, Arwyn; Götzinger, Sophia; Spiegel, Heide; Oorts, Katrien; Chartin, Caroline; Borůvka, Luboš; Pihlap, Evelin; Putku, Elsa; Heikkinen, Jaakko; Boulonne, Line; Poeplau, Christopher; Marx, Marc; Tagliaferri, Elisa; Vinci, Ialina; Leitāns, Lauris; Armolaitis, Kęstutis; van Egmond, Fenny; Kobza, Jozef; Wetterlind, Johanna; Drobnik, Thomas; Hirte, Juliane; Hefler, József; Smreczak, Bożena; Carvalho Gomes, Lucas; Humlekrog Greve, Mogens; Bispo, AntonioIn Europe, 60%–70% of soils are considered degraded, underscoring the urgent need for consistent monitoring to prevent further degradation and support evidence-based policies for sustainable soil management. Many countries in Europe have implemented one or more soil monitoring systems (SMSs), often established long before the EU-wide “Land Use/Cover Area frame statistical Survey Soil”, LUCAS Soil program. As a result, their sampling strategies and analytical methodologies vary significantly. The proposed EU Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience (Soil Monitoring Law, SML) aims to address these differences by establishing a unified framework for systematic soil health monitoring across the EU. This paper assesses the compatibility of the 25 identified SMSs from countries participating in the EJP SOIL Program with the anticipated requirements of the SML. The analysis focuses on critical aspects, including sampling strategies, analytical methods, and data accessibility. Results show significant variability in SMS approaches, including sampling depth, monitored land uses, and analytical methods, which limit cross-system comparability. Despite challenges, opportunities for harmonization include aligning SMSs with the LUCAS Soil methodology, developing transfer functions, and adopting scoring systems for soil health evaluation. Enhanced collaboration and data accessibility are also emphasized as critical for achieving the SML's objectives. This research provides actionable recommendations to harmonise SMSs with the SML framework, promoting coordinated soil monitoring efforts across Europe to support the EU's goal of achieving healthy soils by 2050.Item Review of Soil Threats and Soil-Related Ecosystem Services European Maps: Can We Use Them to Study Their Relationships?(Wiley, 2025-10-22) Reyes-Rojas, Jessica ; Montagne, David ; Saby, Nicolas P. A. ; Coblinski, João Augusto ; Pindral, Sylwia ; Medina-Roldán, Eduardo ; Lorenzetti, Romina ; Scammacca, Ottone ; Piccini, Chiara ; Borůvka, Luboš ; Cornu, SophieThe scientific concepts of soil threats (STs) and soil-related ecosystem services (SESs) are gaining importance and are fueling the debate on natural resources management and decision-making within the EU. The literature reports numerous assessments of individual STs and SESs at the European scale. However, a comprehensive overview of the patterns emerging from the relationships between STs and SESs is still lacking, which restricts the ability to limit soil degradation and its impact on SESs. In this article, we provide an in-depth analysis of existing European maps for three STs (soil organic carbon loss, erosion, and compaction) and four SESs (climate regulation and carbon sequestration, hydrological control, biomass production, and erosion control) and the feasibility of combining them to study their relationships. At the EU-level, 37 maps for these STs and 17 for these SESs were encountered. With the notable exception of erosion, these maps differ considerably in their conceptualization of STs and SESs, and in the indicators, methods, and databases used to assess them. In the current situation, the combination of individual maps of STs and SESs to study their relationships is rarely possible. Besides these limitations, we identify possible combinations and provide recommendations aimed at improving the compatibility between different STs/SESs maps. We conclude that there is a need for a more robust framework for conceptualizing STs/SESs and for systematically and precisely specifying the chosen indicators.Item Stakeholders' Perspectives on the Current State and Transition to Sustainable Soil Management Across Europe(Wiley, 2025-10-02) Pulido-Moncada, Mansonia; Stone, Tiffanie Faye; Løvlund Bach, Jonna; Hvarregaard Thorsøe, Martin; Munkholm, Lars J.; Baratella, Valentina; Vanino, Silvia; Farina, Roberta; Chenu, Claire; Cornu, Sophie; Mason, Eloïse; Keesstra, Saskia; Herrmann, Anke M.; Barron, Jennie; Stenberg, Bo; Jarosch, Klaus A.; Mihelič, Rok; Mavsar, Sara; Gonçalves, Maria da Conceição; Castanheira, Nádia Luísa; Ortman, Tove; László, Péter; Ramler, David; Madenoglu, Sevinc; Ozcan, Hesna; Leppälä, Johanna; Ruysschaert, Greet; Gimeno, Benjamin S.; Huyghebaert, Bruno; Kasparinskis, Raimonds; Siebielec, Grzegorz; Świątek, KarolinaImplementing sustainable soil management practices to enhance soil health is a priority in research and policymaking across Europe. There is a need to identify the main soil challenges faced by different European stakeholders and the critical threats limiting the adoption of sustainable management of agricultural soils. The present study analyses stakeholders' perspectives on key soil challenges, knowledge gaps, and priorities for agricultural soil research across partner countries that participated in the European Joint Programme on Soil (EJP SOIL) 2020–2025. Two complementary stakeholder activities—a survey and a workshop—were conducted across 24 partner countries (divided into four regions: Central, Northern, Southern, and Western Europe) of the EJP SOIL consortium in 2024. Among 10 pre-identified soil challenges, the findings highlight that maintaining or increasing soil organic carbon, avoiding soil sealing, and avoiding soil erosion are the top three priorities across Europe. However, the perceived prioritisation of soil challenges differed both between and within regions, reflecting each country's specific soil health context. Divergences in perceptions between practitioners and other stakeholder groups underscore the need to develop actions aimed at better understanding the rationale behind such discrepancies and how to overcome them. In addition, other key challenges for achieving sustainable soil management across Europe include limited funding, policy incoherencies, poor knowledge dissemination and co- creation, and insufficient soil monitoring. Environmental factors influencing soil health, including climate change, together with governance and economic models, were perceived to be critical limitations to the adoption of sustainable management of agricultural soils. This study also emphasises the need for a diversity of engagement methods, policies, and system approaches to support a transition towards sustainable soil management. These findings underscore the need for future research agendas that focus on integrated knowledge and participatory approaches, and strategies involving societal awareness and policy alignment—key elements that have also informed broader strategies involving societal awareness and engagement towards sustainable soil management in Europe.