Farmers, scientists, and other soil health stakeholders require interpretable indicators of soil hydraulic function. Determining which indicators to use has been difficult because of measurement disconformity, spatial and temporal variability, recently established treatments, and the effect of site characteristics on management practice differences. The North American Project to Evaluate Soil Health Measurements includes 124 sites uniformly sampled across a range of soil health management practices in North America in 2019. We compare and recommend indicators of hydraulic function that best characterize soil health. We assessed the relationship of each indicator to a suite of soil inherent properties and climate variables, the response of each indicator to soil health management practices, the effect that soil inherent properties (clay content, sand content, and pH) and climatic variables (10-yr mean annual precipitation and temperature) had on response to management practices, and the relationship among the responses of the indicators to soil health management practices. Field capacity measured on intact cores (θFC_INTACT) was the best measure of soil hydraulic function, because it responded to management, represents a direct measure of soil hydraulic function, is proximal to stakeholder values, and its response to management was not significantly influenced by inherent and climatic variables. Other suitable indicators are bulk density, soil organic carbon (SOC), and aggregate stability, which are not direct measures of soil hydraulic function but do respond to management and may be practical in situations in which measuring θFC_INTACT is not. This study informs selection of soil health indicators to measure soil hydraulic function.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||21|
|Journal||Soil Science Society of America Journal|
|State||Published - Sep 1 2022|
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
The NAPESHM project is part of a broader effort titled, “Assessing and Expanding Soil Health for Production, Economic, and Environmental Benefits”. The project is funded by the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research (grant ID 523926), General Mills, and The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research. Names given are to provide specific information and do not constitute endorsement by the authors over other entities that may be equally suitable. The authors acknowledge the following individuals and groups for their contribution to the long‐term research sites: George Kapusta, Ronald Krausz, Karla Gage, Rachel Cook, Amanda Weidhuner, Melissa Bell, Nancy Creamer, Alan Franzluebbers, Tomas Moreno, Paul Mueller, Chris Reberg‐Horton, Mike Zink, Matthew Helmers, Lisa Schulte‐Moore, Matt Mortenson, Sean Vink, Orla Willoughby, Deanna L. Osmond, Bob Blevins, Donald C. Watts, Dr. Kenneth A. Barbarick, Robert S. Dungan, Joshua L. Heitman, James Custis, John Mason, April B. Leytem, Mark A. Liebig, Michael L. Thompson, and Lamesa Cotton Growers.
© 2022 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Soil Science Society of America Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Soil Science Society of America. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.