11 554 Sr7 Integrated Soil Management

7/21/2019 11 554 Sr7 Integrated Soil Management

1/8

FORESIGHT PROJECT ON GLOBAL FOOD

AND FARMING FUTURES

Integrated soil managementmoving towards globally

sustainable agriculture

K. KILLH AM

Remedios Ltd,Aberdeen,Scotland,UK

(Revised MS received 27 September 2010; Accepted 28 September 2010)

S U M M A R Y

This review introduces the main concepts behind integrated soil management (ISM) and examinesthe ways in which it currently operates. It suggests the scope for future technological development. Thereview also highlights the potential of ISM to address the challenge of meeting the demands of theincreasing world population, while maintaining sustainable agro-ecosystems, as judged from long-term soil fertility, environmental and socio-economic perspectives. Changes to policy, governance andfunding worldwide will be needed to conserve and manage the soil resource, and to restore alreadydegraded systems. Research should be prioritized to ensure continued delivery of new soil tech-nologies. Such changes must engage all land-use stakeholders, must involve educational, training andextension programmes and must embrace the multidisciplinarity required for effective soil

conservation and management.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Limited prospects for increasing overall land areaunder crop production, along with declining yield ofmajor food crops in many parts of the world, raise con-cerns about the capacity to feed a world population ex-pected to exceed 75 billion by 2020 (Mosier & Kroeze2000). Furthermore, widespread decline of soil ferti-lity also raises questions about the sustainability ofcurrent agricultural production levels, maintenance ofanimal health through soil-mediated supply of goodherbage and the wider range of ecosystem goods andservices that soils must provide. The soil resource baseis the critical component of agro-ecosystems, andmust be managed sustainably to safeguard foodsecurity. Future strategies for increasing agriculturalproductivity must focus on more efcient use of soilresources. Integrated soil management (ISM) en-compasses many of the principles required to achievethis.

Denitions

ISM involves a combined strategy of effective nutrient,crop, water, soil and land management (Fig. 1) forsustainable agricultural production and other forms ofland use. Sustainable agriculture requires conservationof land and water, as well as plant and animal geneticresources, it does not degrade the environment, and iseconomically viable and socially acceptable (Sakai2009). It can be tailored to the characteristics of siteand soil and, importantly, to environmental, economicand social constraints faced by farmers.

C U R R E N T D E V E L O P M E N T S I N I SM

Global perspective

The doubling of global food demand projected for thenext 50 years (Beddington2009) poses a challenge forsustainability of food production and the environ-ment.

The greatest requirement for soil management tech-nologies to best use soil and water resources is inthe arid and semi-arid developing world, includingEmail: [email protected]

Journal of Agricultural Science, Page 1 of 8. Cambridge University Press2010doi:10.1017/S0021859610000845

1


2/8

sub-Saharan Africa as well as large parts of India,Central Asia and north-eastern Brazil (Lal 2000).Such technologies should enhance soil structure, im-prove nutrient use efciency, conserve valuable soiland water resources, improve water use efciencyand, where possible, increase cropping intensity (Lal2000). Although ISM, incorporating these aims, offersa way ahead, a real shift towards this is critically

dependent on policy conditions, as well as educationaland cultural changes to translate policy into action(Kauffman et al. 2000). This will apply to mostdeveloping areas.

Minimization/avoidance of soil degradation andenvironmental pollution

Soil and fertility loss worldwide are caused bysalinization, desertication and soil mismanagement.Continued loss of productive land along with vital,stabilizing, soil organic matter in developing countriessuch as Pakistan is linked to the separation of fertilitymanagement and rainwater conservation practices(Shaheen et al. 2009). A more effective future direc-tion is offered by ISM, where these issues are dealtwith in a combined strategy. Lal (2000) identied soil-specic technologies for such a combined strategyincluding structural enhancement, integrated nutrientmanagement/recycling, residue management/incorpor-ation/mulching, conservation/minimum tillage andimproved water capture/recycling/irrigation. Successof conservation/minimum tillage in increasing soilorganic matter, with consequent improvement in fer-tility and erosion control, has been reported for

Brazilian agriculture (Machado & Silva2001). Otherestablished technologies such as contour ploughing/physical barriers across slopes and cover cropping are

also useful in stabilizing soil vulnerable to erosion,particularly in arid and semi-arid areas.

A range of agroforestry (silvopastoral and silvoar-able) approaches protect against erosion and con-servation of the soil resource, through mechanismssuch as more effective rooting patterns to stabilize

soil and access water, riparian zones, residue incor-poration and green manuring with legume residues.Agroforestry-mediated soil and water conservationwith associated erosion control has proved successfulin Himalayan India using leguminous (Leucaena) andnon-leguminous (Eucalyptus) trees (Narain et al .1998).

Some technologies for protection against soilerosion are also effective in reducing environmentalpollution (gaseous and waterborne) resulting fromagriculture and reect multiple gains from ISM. Thisapplies to riparian strips, effective management of

residues with varying carbon:nitrogen (C:N) ratios,cover cropping and minimum tillage (Dinnes et al.2002). It also applies to agroforestry through nutrientinterception at different rooting depths of arable cropsand trees, as well as through mulching of tree litter.

Manipulation of the soil biota for sustainableproduction

Chemical control of soil biota has long been prac-tised using pesticides. More interestingly, rates of keybelow-ground processes have been partially managed

with selective inhibitors. Examples include inhibitorsto control urea hydrolysis and nitrication (Zamanet al. 2009), while slow release fertilizers such assulphur or polyolen-coated ureas retard microbiolo-gical activity, better marrying nutrient supply to cropdemand.

Biofertilization

Although legume inoculation for enhancing nitrogen(N2)xation has been successful (mainly in tropicallatitudes) and inoculation programmes with my-corrrhizal fungi and phosphate-solubilizing micro-organisms have encountered limited success (Siddiquiet al.2008), widespread biofertilization with microbialinocula is yet to be realized. For consistently success-ful microbial inoculation, favourable edaphic con-ditions (resulting from ISM) are required at inoculumdelivery and establishment.

Biocontrol

Whether exploiting indigenous populations or intro-duced inocula, biocontrol suffers from inconsistenteld performance but has consistently succeeded inthe protected and controlled connes of glasshouses.However, biocontrol forms a critical part of asystems

approachto integrated, sustainable soil pest manage-ment, to combat insecticide-resistant pests and mini-mize pesticide use (Bale et al. 2008). Successful,

Water

management

Crop

managementIntegrated

soil

management

Nutrient

management

Soil tillage

and

conservation

management

Land

use

management

Fig. 1. ISM and its components.

2 K. K I L L H A M


3/8

consistent biocontrol beyond the glasshouse requiresresearch to understand the biology/ecology of pest/control agent/soil interaction so that soil managementunderpins this interaction.

Integrated weed control and control under soilconservation tillage

Sustainable agriculture requires control of pests andweeds with minimum input of chemical pesticides,which sometimes have unfortunate and environmen-tally damaging, non-target effects. Researching forviable alternatives to chemical control is also drivenby issues of food safety and quality.

Integrated weed management, like ISM, involvesalternative control measures. These include cultural,genetic, mechanical, biological and chemical means ofweed control, none of which alone provide acceptable

levels of control, but if implemented in some system-atic strategy, adequate control is achieved (Swantonet al.2008).

Integrated weed management for conservationtillage systems, well documented in Australian agri-culture (Swanton et al. 2008), for example, aims tominimize environmental impacts of crop production,while maintaining effective weed control and prot-ability, but poses the greatest weed control challenge.Reduced herbicide application, rotary hoeing, inter-row cultivation and more advanced weeding tech-niques (e.g. intra-row hoeing) form components of

alternative weed control and strongly complement/parallel ISM. Traditional techniques for weed andother pest control, such as soil solarization, are alsobeing revisited with a view to sustainable, ISM.

Soil use as determined by land capability for agriculture

Managing soil for land-use capability is pivotal forISM. Soil surveys have been carried out in many partsof the world to classify soil for land-use (particularlyagricultural) capability, but this is frequently ignoredor over-ridden in land-use decision-making by other

criteria.There are several different approaches for assessing

land-use capability, each one having been developedfor a particular part of the world. Many European sys-tems are derived from approaches pioneered in NorthAmerica. Assessment of land capability for agricul-ture is therefore well proven, and assessment is basedon relationships between cropping and physicalfactors of soil, topography and climate.

Soil fertility enhancement and maintenance

ISM aims to combine organic and inorganic nutrientsoptimally for the enhancement/maintenance of soil fer-tility. This is not a new concept and there are obvious

advantages to it, particularly in tropical latitudeswhere not only are nutrients supplied through miner-alization from organic amendments, but there are alsobenets from the activation of microbial biomass byan organic energy source. Organic amendments alsosupply a precursor to soil organic matter, reducing soil

phosphorus (P) sorption (but increasing cationicnutrient retention) and enhancing fertility. With theexpense of inorganic fertilizers, especially in develop-ing countries, there is an economic and soil fertilityargument to combined use of inorganic and organicfertilizers. Organic sources, providing bound nitrogen(N), P and sulphur (S), as well as some potassium (K),include composted and non-composted animal andcrop residues, as well as sewage sludge (assumingacceptable metal concentrations). For both animaland human wastes, pathogens must be appropriatelymanaged. However, regular organic amendments

should translate to long-term improvements in cropyields as soil organic matter levels increase and soilbecomes more fertile and structurally stable. Lal(2004) highlighted the important link between resto-ring diminished organic matter of degraded soils,and estimated that an increase of 1 tonne (t) of soilcarbon in degraded cropland may increase yield by2040 kg/ha for wheat, 1020 kg/ha for maize and051 kg/ha for cowpea.

Adopting integrated soil fertility management(ISFM) requires policy and cultural changes in muchof the developing world especially holders of small

farms on marginal land, who rarely practise soilfertility management. ISFM involves judicious use offarmyard manures, crop residues, animal dung, greenmanures and oil cakes combined with inorganicfertilization, but this type of farming is not wide-spread.

Although ISM may offer sustainability throughlong-term soil fertility, there are many development-perpetuated myths about the adverse effects of in-organic fertilizers and benecial effects of organicamendments requiring correction so that effectivestrategies are taken forward, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (Vanlauwe & Giller 2006).

Precision farming

Precision farming offers much of the enabling scienceneeded to deliver ISM with the optimal use of soil,water and nutrient resources for efcient productionand minimal environmental pollution. Precision farm-ing with global positioning satellites (GPS) comprisesremote sensing to locate ground position and geo-graphic information systems (GIS) to store groundinformation for farming (Sylvester-Bradley et al .1999). It prescribes spatially, at appropriate scale,

practices such as fertilization (the main practice underprecision farming) cultivation/tillage, sowing andweeding using spatially variable soil/crop data.

3Integrated soil management and sustainability


4/8

Despite benets of precision farming, there are ob-vious economic and social constraints to its adoptionin developing countries, restricting it to large-scale,commercial farms. It may be, however, that somemodels of precision farming, particularly community-based models with associated learning groups of

farmers and companies (Shibusawa 2004), can beapplied to smaller-scale farms.

Soil in relation to land reclamation

Because ISM combines improvement of the supply ofavailable soil water, restoring and improving soilfertility with organic and inorganic nutrient manage-ment and soil conservation techniques, it offers greatpotential for reclamation of structurally and chemi-cally degraded soils, particularly in arid and semi-aridzones (Kauffmanet al.2000).

Crop productivity loss due to soil degradation(from erosion) is estimated at 18 million tonnes offood staples per year at 1990 yield levels for sub-Saharan Africa and 272 million tonnes worldwide at1996 production levels (Lal2000). This may representa yield loss at the landscape level or even total cropfailure at the farm level. Much soil structural integritycomes from organic matter, including the livingfraction (soil microbial biomass). The mining of soilorganic matter through agriculture is common andthreatens structural integrity, particularly in tropicalsoils (Lal2004), as organic matter mediates short term

and more persistent binding. Loss of soil structure canalso occur through slaking and dispersion, oftenlinked to intensive cultivation (Lal 2008), causing com-paction and vital loss of the pore size distributionneeded to maintain soil fertility. Because of thesedifferent processes, mechanisms of soil structuralcollapse and degradation vary climatically and fromone soil type to another.

Technologies that enhance soil structure (residueincorporation and mulching, soil conditioning, man-uring and some forms of agroforestry) and conservesoil (cover cropping, contour ploughing, riparianzones, minimum tillage and efcient/appropriate irri-gation) have to be selected on a soil-/site-specic basisbut offer ISM tools of soil restoration from physicaldegradation worldwide.

Remediation of contaminated soil

Although estimates of chemically contaminated(organic contaminants and/or metals) land vary withdenition and methods of analysis, and a global gureis unknown, the extent is vast. Estimates of chemicallycontaminated land in England and Wales alone rangefrom 50000 to 200000 ha (EA 2000). While the

heaviest chemical contamination is associated withlong histories of industrial development, the problemis worldwide, with contamination from persistent

pesticides and from diffuse atmospheric pollutantsbeing ubiquitous.

Remediation of contaminated land, along withfood production, requires ISM where the emphasis ison sustainability rather than short-term gains. Bio-remediation refers to the application of biodegrada-

tive processes to remove/detoxify contaminants foundin water, soil or sediments. It can offer a cost-effectivealternative to more traditional dig and dump ap-proaches and frequently offers sustainable solutions tothe restoration of contaminated land, reducing land-lling and harnessing the inherent capacity of soil fordegrading and immobilizing many contaminants, andrestoring ecosystem function/health. Bioremediationalso offers the prospects of soil reuse, assuming thatregulatory end-points are reached. Both in situ andex situbioremediation require integrated managementof soil and water (this may be groundwater, surface

and soil water depending on site and type of bio-remediation) resource, with issues of nutrient status/supply and oxygenation being critical for optimalremediation (Piotrowskiet al.2006).

Indicators for monitoring soil

Sustainable soil use requires robust indicators tomonitor changes in soil quality/health. Recent re-search to identify which indicators are most suitablepoints to biological properties, as they best diagnosesoil health and complement existing and well under-

stood physicochemical properties.A suite of indicators identied by Ritzet al. (2009)comprises molecular ngerprinting techniques as wellas more traditional enzymatic- and organism-basedapproaches, addressing the major biological trophiclevels that mediate soil function. Measurement ofthese indicators requires standard operating proce-dures and assessment of their sensitivity, capacity todiscriminate between soil and land-use combinations,as well as ecological/agroecological relevance.

F U T U R E P O T E N T I A L O F I SM

While focusing on current aspects, it is useful toconsider how ISM may develop in future both withpolicy/advisory support and with technological ad-vances.

Uptake of ISM

Current policy approaches in many developingcountries may prevent the transition to ISM (Koninget al. 2001). The time lags involved in adopting newtechnologies, in applying them to local conditions,and in harvesting the benets of soil fertility invest-

ments ideally call for dual support of agricul-tural incomes and educational/extension/advisoryprogrammes through policy change. The changes

4 K. K I L L H A M


5/8

required for realizing the benets of ISM have beenhampered in West Africa, for example, by socio-economic factors. These include insecure land-userights, political instability, bureaucratic culture,disproportionate investment in research/extensiontowards export crops rather than staples, expense of

infrastructural improvements and established farmingattitudes based on long fallow and nomadic pastoralagriculture. These are not conducive to agriculturalintensication (Koninget al.2001) or to the develop-ment of effective decision support tools.

Progress in ISM in developing countries and thechallenges facing further adoption in sub-SaharanAfrica, India, Central Asian countries, north-easternBrazil and other semi-arid regions of the developingworld are reviewed by Lal (2000).

Global movement towards ISM is likely to bedriven by the food and environmental policies of deve-

loped and developing countries, as well as associatedsocio-economic (including educational) programmesintroduced to facilitate such policies.

New technologies for soil improvement

There is considerable scope for manipulation of thesoilplantmicrobe system for agricultural produc-tion, with new knowledge meeting the challenges ofnutrient deciencies, pests and diseases, and the needfor increasing global food production in an environ-mentally sustainable manner (Lamberset al.2009).

Soil biotechnological advances

Control of soil processes and pests by chemical meansis reasonably well established, although the number ofprocess targets and consistency of control are limited.There is increasing scope to engineer the crop rootsoil interface for this type of control, either throughinoculation or changing the nature of the crop.Rhizosphere engineering may involve genetic modi-cation or other biotechnological approaches. Thelatter can be achieved, for example, by exploiting themycorrhizal symbiosis between plants and certainroot colonizing fungi. The arbuscular mycorrhizal(AM) symbiosis, involving most crop plants, inhibitscertain disease causing pathogens, although mechan-isms are poorly understood (Harrier & Watson2004).Unfortunately, routine inoculum production/deliveryis far from achievable due to cultural demands of AMfungi.

Genetic manipulation may involve modifyingmicrobial inocula or crop modication. For the latter,manipulation of rhizosphere C ow offers control ofplant disease (Jones et al. 2009) by inhibition of patho-gens or by stimulation of antagonists (mainly bac-teria). Genetic modication of microbial inocula may

target enhancing mechanisms of antagonizing croppathogens, or may be aimed at increasing inoculumestablishment potential.

Consistent control of some plant diseases may bestbe realized through engineering of the plant itself.Pardo-Lopezet al. (2009) review strategies to improvethe activity of insecticidal toxins from Bacillusthuringiensis by using this bacterium and the plant asdelivery vehicles as well as preventing the develop-

ment of resistance.Many microbial functions linked to soil fertility are

controlled by signals from plants and other microbes.Although a rapidly emerging area of science withresearch still needed, it presents a promising approachfor manipulating below ground processes, eitherthrough plant engineering to produce signals (ormimics) or engineering of microbial inocula. Someplants, including economically important legumes,produce halogenated furanones, mimics of microbialsignals and which appear to regulate importantmicrobial processes in the rhizosphere (Bauer &

Robinson2002).Biotechnological advances will drive forward (bio)-

remediation. Again, this may involve genetic engi-neering, but will often involve better exploitation ofnatural systems. For example, the mycorrhizospherearound fungalroot associations formed by mostplants offers great potential. Ectomycorrhizal associ-ations involving trees are particularly promising asthis zone represents a bioreactor for breakdown oforganic pollutants (Joner & Leyval 2003), as well asmetal immobilization/uptake. The extent of ectomy-corrhizal root systems may enable slow, but sustain-

able,in situbioremediation to considerable depths.Although this review focuses on soil, great biotech-nological advances are likely to come from plantbreeding, which should be encouraged to continueintroducing increasingly nutrient- (and water-) ef-cient crops to facilitate the greatest yields fromnutrient inputs to soils, and species better adapted toextreme conditions.

Composting/manuring/fermentation technologies

Incorporation of organic residues and manures is thekey to many ISM strategies. These inputs are oftencomposted to ensure highest compatibility with grow-ing crops. Composting, manuring and fermentationtechnologies have advanced considerably in the lastfew decades and now offer controllable preparation ofmany types of organic materials for soil incorpor-ation. A great advantage of composting for ISM isoperation at a wide range of scales and processing ofdiverse mixtures of ligno-cellulosic plant waste withmaterial of lower C:N ratio such as animal wastes orgreen manures (e.g. legume residues) (Insam et al.2002).

As composting technologies continue to be

adopted, simple, cheap indicators of compost matur-ity/stability are becoming commercially available(Wuet al.2000).



6/8

Advances in precision farming

Currently, precision farming is mainly restricted tolarge-scale, high-budget farming, as well as to the useof sensor-assisted systems in horticulture. However, itcan potentially assist in the efcient application of

ISM at a greater range of scales, in forestry and hor-ticulture as well as agriculture, if the access barriers ofcost and ease of use are progressively reduced. Further-more, precision farming focuses on site-specic ap-plication of fertilizers, with the resulting cost andassociated advantages being relatively modest. Thecontrol of weeds, insect pests and soil-borne plantdiseases has received less attention. Precision farmingwill increase considerably in importance when theseaspects are integrated, along with reduced environ-mental pollution (Auernhammer2001).

Soil degradation prediction and controlAs soil erosion continues to cause widespread lossof soil/soil fertility across the world, and affect waterquality through inputs of transported sediments, nutri-ents and pesticides/pesticide residues, areas prone toerosion need to be identied so that appropriate con-servation measures are introduced.

Conventional prediction of soil erosion based oneld soil surveys to generate erosion maps is expensiveor unrealistic for many developing countries. Soil andenvironmental data are fed into the Universal SoilLoss equation (USLE), but data are sparse and/or

uncertain. Limited variable, fuzzy logic models offera promising way forward at a fraction of the cost oftraditional, eld-based approaches. These models arereasonably good predictors, and partly based on sate-llite measurable parameters such as slope angle andland use.

Where structural integrity is being lost through thereduction in soil organic matter associated with in-tensive cultivation, a greater understanding of criticalthresholds for this is needed, along with the mosteffective ISM strategies for maintenance and resto-ration of soil organic pools (particularly those res-ponsible for structural stability).

To ensure effective application of ISM, simple testsof soil structure have been developed so that farmerscan monitor soil structure in the eld with minimalexpertise/equipment (Low1954).

ISM for addressing climate change

Soil management is the key to carbon (C)-sequestra-tion (Liu et al. 2006), with soils containing twice asmuch C as the atmosphere, and the sink capacityof the worlds agricultural and degraded soil being

050066 of the historic C loss through cultivationand disturbance. The latter gure has been estimatedat 4090 gigatonne (Gt) C, with current rates of loss of

16 08 Gt C/year, mainly in the tropics (Smith2008).

Agriculture contributes a major part of greenhousegas (GHG) emissions. For example, arable landsprovide c. 020 of the global N2O output of 1316 megatonne (Mt)/year (Bouwman 1996), through

denitrication and nitrication. Therefore, as agricul-tural systems represent an organic matter reservoirand provide sources and sinks of the GHGs carbondioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide(N2O), there is considerable scope for the applicationof ISM (including composting technologies) in con-trolling C-sequestration/loss and GHG uxes fromland.

Controls of C-sequestration and GHG emission arereasonably well established, and ISM strategies toachieve sequestration and acceptable balance of GHGemission may involve practices, such as minimum

tillage, optimal fertilizer/manuring regimes, water andresidual nutrient management, residue incorporationand cover cropping. It may also involve changingcropping practices (even shifting from arable to forestcrops) to systems favouring C-sequestration, althougheconomic incentives may be required.

Despite knowledge of controls of soil C-sequestra-tion and GHG emission, ISM for minimizing environ-mental change is complex. Management to loweruxes of one GHG may well increase those ofanother. Sequestering more C will also impact onGHG emissions and vice versa. Achieving the best

compromise by weighting the strength of GHGagainst uxes, while achieving reasonable C-seques-tration, will require knowledge of which soils areconducive to different management, use of land-useand climate change models for achieving a globallyeffective strategy (Smith 2008) and long-term moni-toring of soil organic matter status.

Any soil strategy to increase C-sequestration andcontrol GHG emission must not only include agri-cultural and forest soils, where capacity for additionalC-sequestration is limited, but also semi-natural andnatural systems, including many peatland systemswhere much global C is stored (Freibaueret al.2004).

Where ISM aims to minimize the environmental im-pact of agriculture, including climate change, policyshifts (and adoption of associated educational/advi-sory programmes) will be needed to change farmingrewards across the world towards more sustainableland use.

Globally accepted and appropriate soil indicators

As possible indicators are identied for soil monitor-ing to ensure sustainable management (Ritz et al.2009); their validity in providing robust agro-ecologi-

cally relevant data for policy-makers must be assessed.Although some indicators should be specic tonational/regional monitoring, a number should be

6 K. K I L L H A M


7/8

internationally robust and provide a global perspec-tive. Furthermore, advanced spatial methods of moni-toring will be required to assess changes in soil health/quality with changing land use. This is particularlytrue for countries such as China with the challenge ofa considerable land area under management (Sun

et al.2003).

ISM and the challenge of scale-up

Research into technologies underpinning ISM shouldbe given high priority, but research should also ad-dress scale-up so that technologies are appropriateacross the range of scales required. Satellite data andfuzzy logic models to predict areas of soil erosionfacilitate this, as soil survey maps derived from otherdata sets do, such as Digital Terrain Models and geo-

logical data (Mayr & Palmer2006). In reality, manypotential benets associated with ISM cannot berealized without addressing scale-up, with the needfor associated links to industry (to deliver com-mercially available technology/infrastructure) and

policy-makers (Noordin et al. 2007), as well as toeducation/extension.

C O N C L U D I N G R E M A R K S

This review has introduced the main concepts behind

ISM and the ways in which it currently operates, andhas suggested scope for future technological develop-ment. It has also highlighted the potential of ISM toaddress the challenge of meeting the increasingdemands of the worldsburgeoning population, whilemaintaining sustainable agro-ecosystems from long-term soil fertility, environmental and socio-economicperspectives. This will only be realized with changes topolicy, governance and funding worldwide to con-serve and manage the soil resource, including restor-ation of already degraded systems, and prioritizingresearch to ensure continued delivery of new soil

technologies. Such changes must engage all land-usestakeholders, involve educational and training/exten-sion programmes as well as embrace the multidisci-plinarity required for effective soil conservation andmanagement.

R E F E R E N C E S

AUERNHAMMER, H. (2001). Precision farming the environ-mental challenge. Computers and Electronics in Agri-culture30, 3143.

BALE, J . S . , VAN LENTEREN, J . C . & BIGLER, F. (2008).

Biological control and sustainable food production.Philo-sophical Transactions Royal Society London B. BiologicalSciences363, 761776.

BAUER, W . D . & ROBINSON, J. B. (2002). Disruption ofbacterial quorum sensing by other organisms. CurrentOpinion in Biotechnology 13, 234237.

BEDDINGTON, J. (2009). Food, Energy, Water and the Climate:A Perfect Storm of Global Events?London: GovernmentOfce for Science.

BOUWMAN, A. F. (1996). Direct emission of nitrous oxidefrom agricultural soils. Nutrient Cycling in Agroeco-systems46, 5370.

DINNES, D. L., KARLEN, D. L., JAYNES, D. B., KASPAR, T. C.,HATFIELD, J. L. , COLVIN, T . S . & CAMBARDELLA, C. A .

(2002). Nitrogen management strategies to reduce nitrateleaching in tile-drained midwestern soils. AgronomyJournal94, 153171.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY(EA) (2000).The State of the Environ-ment of England and Wales: The Land. London: HMSO.

FREIBAUER, A., ROUNSEVELL, M. D. A., SMITH, P. &VERHAGEN, J. (2004). Carbon sequestration in the agricul-tural soils of Europe.Geoderma122, 123.

HARRIER, L.A. & WATSON, C. A. (2004). The potential roleof arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi in the bioprotectionof plants against soil-borne pathogens in organic and/orother sustainable farming systems. Pest ManagementScience60, 149157.

INSAM, H., RIDDECH, N. & KLAMMER, S. (2002).

Microbiology of Composting. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.JONER, E. J. & LEYVAL, C. (2003). Phytoremediation

of organic pollutants using mycorrhizal plants: a new

aspect of rhizosphere interactions. Agronomie 23,495502.

JONES, D. L., NGUYEN, C. & FINLAY, R. D. (2009). Carbonow in the rhizosphere: carbon trading at the soilroot

interface.Plant and Soil321, 5

33.KAUFFMAN, S., KONING, N. & HEERINK, N. (2000).Integrated soil management and agricultural developmentin West Africa: 1. Potentials and constraints. The Land4,7292.

KONING, N., HEERINK, N . & KAUFFMAN, S. (2001). Foodinsecurity, soil degradation and agricultural markets inWest Africa: why current policy approaches fail. OxfordDevelopment Studies29, 189207.

LAL, R. (2000). Soil management in the developing countries.Soil Science165, 5772.

LAL, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts onglobal climate change and food security. Science 304,16231627.

LAL, R. (2008). Soils and sustainable agriculture. A review.Agronomy for Sustainable Development28, 5764.

LAMBERS, H., MOUGEL, C., JAILLARD, B. & HINSINGER, P.(2009). Plantmicrobesoil interactions in the rhizosphere:an evolutionary perspective.Plant and Soil321, 83115.

LIU, X . , HERBERT, S . J. , HASHEMI, A . M. , ZHANG, X . &DING, G. (2006). Effects of agricultural management onsoil organic matter and carbon transformation a review.Plant, Soil and Environment52, 531543.

LOW, A. J. (1954). The study of soil structure in the eld andthe laboratory.European Journal of Soil Science 5, 5774.

MACHADO, P. L. O. A. & SILVA, C. A. (2001). Soil manage-ment under no-tillage systems in the tropics with specialreference to Brazil.Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems61,

119130.MAYR, T.R. & PALMER, R. C. (2006). Digital soil mapping:

an England and Wales perspective. In Digital Soil



8/8

Mapping, An Introductory Perspective(Eds P. Lagacherie,A. B. McBratney & M. Voltz), pp. 365376. Develop-ments in Soil Science 31. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

MOSIER, A. & KROEZE, C. (2000). Potential impact on theglobal atmospheric N2O budget of the increased nitrogeninput required to meet future global food demands.

Chemosphere

Global Change Science 2, 465

473.NARAIN, P., SINGH, R. K., SINDHWAL, N . S . & JOSHIE, P.(1998). Agroforestry for soil and water conservation in thewestern Himalayan Valley Region of India. 1. Runoff, soiland nutrient losses.Agroforestry Systems 39, 175189.

NOORDIN, Q., MUKALAMA, J., ROTICH, D., WABWILE, E. &LYNAM, J. (2007). Scaling up options on integrated soilfertility management in Western Kenya: the case ofCOSOFAP: challenges and opportunities. In Advances inIntegrated Soil Fertility Management in sub-SaharanAfrica: Challenges and Opportunities (Eds A. Bationo, B.Waswa, J. Kihara & J. Kimetu), pp. 9931000. Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Springer.

PARDO-LOPEZ, L., MUNOZ-GARAY, C., PORTA, H.,

RODRIGUEZ-ALMAZAN, C . , SOBERON, M . & BRAVO, A.(2009). Strategies to improve the insecticidal activity ofCry toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis. Peptides 30, 589595.

PIOTROWSKI, M. R., DOYLE, J. R. & CARRAWAY, J. W. (2006).Integrated bioremediation of soil and groundwater at asuperfund site.Remediation Journal2, 293309.

RITZ, K., BLACK, H.I. J., CAMPBELL, C. D., HARRIS, J.A. &WOOD, C. (2009). Selecting biological indicators formonitoring soils: a framework for balancing scienticopinion to assist policy development.Ecological Indicators9, 12121221.

SAKAI, N. (2009). The scientic basis and present status ofsustainable agriculture. Journal of Developments in Sus-

tainable Agriculture 4, 710.SHAHEEN, A., NAEEM, M. A., JILANI, G. & SHAFIQ, M. (2009).

Integrated soil management in eroded land augments thecrop yield and water-use efciency. Acta Agriculturae

Scandinavica. Section B, Soil and Plant Science 60, 274282.

SHIBUSAWA, S. (2004). Paradigm of value-driven and com-munity-based precision farming. International Journalof Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 3,299309.

SIDDIQUI

, Z. A., AKHTAR

, M. S. & FUTAI

, K. (2008).Mycorrhizae: Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry.New York: Springer.

SMITH, P. (2008). Soil organic carbon dynamics and land-use change. In Land Use and Soil Resources (Eds. A. K.Braimoh & P. L. G. Vlek), pp. 922. Netherlands:Springer.

SUN, B., ZHOU, S. & ZHAO, Q. (2003). Evaluation of spatialand temporal changes of soil quality based on geostatis-tical analysis in the hill region of subtropical China.Geoderma115, 8599.

SWANTON, C. J., MAHONEY, K. J., CHANDLER, K. &GULDEN, R. H. (2008). Integrated weed management:knowledge-based weed management systems. Weed

Science56, 168

172.SYLVESTER-BRADLEY, R., LORD, E., SPARKES, D. L .,

SCOTT, R. K., WILTSHIRE, J . J . J . & ORSON, J. (1999).An analysis of the potential of precision farming inNorthern Europe.Soil Use and Management 15, 18.

VANLAUWE, B . & GILLER, K. E. (2006). Popular mythsaround soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment116, 3446.

WU, L., MA, L.Q. & MARTINEZ, G. A. (2000). Comparisonof methods for evaluating stability and maturity ofbiosolids compost. Journal of Environmental Quality 29,424429.

ZAMAN, M., SAGGAR, S., BLENNERHASSETT, J.D. & SINGH, J.(2009). Effect of urease and nitrication inhibitors on

N transformation, gaseous emissions of ammonia andnitrous oxide, pasture yield and N uptake in grazedpasture system. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 41, 12701280.

8 K. K I L L H A M

11 554 Sr7 Integrated Soil Management

Documents

Transcript of 11 554 Sr7 Integrated Soil Management