1. Nature: Can We Put a Value on It?
Attributing values to an intangible asset is rather complex: what is the value of wildlife, clean water and air, and healthy soil? The importance of providing, as accurately as possible, a value—one that is socially acceptable and understandable—to the functions and services that nature provides is associated with the desire to simplify decisionmaking for policymakers [
1]. McCauley [
2] has argued that valuing ecosystem services is inappropriate because we should protect nature for its intrinsic value; but valuation is often inevitable in socio-economic dynamics, so it is essential to identify the most suitable approaches [
3].
Already in the seventies, Westman [
4] aimed at demonstrating the significance of linking benefits to the services provided by nature, while also acknowledging the complexities involved. From this point of view, it is compelling to evaluate the value of ecosystem services, striving to quantify the value of nature not just ecologically, but also economically and socially. The recognition of the complexity of the intertwined economic, cultural and social values is increasingly accepted in decision-making, though the approach can be still hardly considered standard practice [
3]. A broader approach that explicitly includes non-market values is being developed in many areas, and aims at integrating ecological sustainability, social justice, and economic efficiency into both public and private decision-making processes [
5,
6].
To give an idea of the complexity of estimating the value of environmental goods and services, techniques as diverse as cost-benefit analysis, production function analysis, travel cost method, hedonic pricing, contingent valuation and replacement/restoration cost have been developed over the years. For example, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) assesses the economic efficiency of alternative policies that affect ecosystem services [
7], by quantifying their impacts in terms of positive (benefits) and negative (costs) changes in the flow of ecosystem services. Applications of the technique include the one in Van Wilgen et al. [
8], who employed CBA to evaluate the costs and benefits of a program aimed at eradicating alien plants from fynbos vegetation in water catchments in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Their research illustrates how CBA can be applied to measure both the economic and ecological impacts of environmental management programs. The production function (PF) analysis is based on estimating the contribution of an ecosystem service to the production of specific services that are or could be marketed [
9], as in the case of drinking water. It relies on production or cost data, which are generally easier to obtain than the data needed to establish demand for ecosystem services [
10]. Travel cost method (TCM) assesses individual preferences for non-market goods by associating their consumption with the cost of transportation required to access them [
11], but the obtained monetary estimates can be inaccurate [
9] and highly subjective [
12]. Hedonic pricing (HP) is based instead on the idea that the value attributed to a service depends on its specific attributes [
12]. The method requires a set of measurable attributes that can predict the price of a good when it is traded. However, measuring these environmental attributes is not always straightforward, and this can lead to incorrect estimates [
9]. Contingent valuation (CV) is based on a hypothetical market in which people are asked, through questionnaires and/or interviews, to state their demand function for a specific environmental good or service [
12]. This method has been widely employed for valuing ecosystem services in various contexts, as it is capable of attributing monetary value to goods without exchange value [
9]. However, Mitchell and Carson [
13] identified technical problems associated with survey design and implementation. Furthermore, the composition and characteristics of the target group, in particular their income and education levels, strongly influence the magnitude of responses [
9]. The replacement/restoration cost (RC) technique determines the value of an ecosystem service by calculating the cost of replacing or restoring it after damage, with the aim of reinstating both lost consumer surplus and non-use value [
12]. Economists emphasize that monetary values derived using RC approach are only valid if individuals would genuinely be willing to bear these costs in the absence of the natural services [
14]. Moreover, the approach is prone to underestimations, due to ecosystem complexity. The ability of soils to absorb air pollutants is an example of ecosystem service whose loss may be undervalued, due to our still limited understanding of the functioning of such a complex ecosystem.
Soils in natural and managed ecosystems are crucial regulatory systems that control a multitude of ecological dynamics with the provision of several ecosystem services [
15,
16,
17,
18]. They further represent one of the critical factors affecting national economies - that’s why the study of soils within the framework of ecosystem services should bear crucial relevance in decision-making and the definition of policies [
19]. In this context, the focus on the services provided by soils is an important part of a larger initiative to incorporate all aspects of nature into an economic perspective [
20].
Recently, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has broadened the notion of ecosystem service by defining 18 Nature’s Contributions to People (NCPs) as “all contributions—positive or negative—of living nature (including diversity of organisms, ecosystems and their associated ecological and evolutionary processes) to the quality of human life” [
21]. The definition serves as an expansion of the ecosystem service concept, embracing a broader array of fields including social sciences and humanities [
22], and categorizes NCPs into material, non-material, and regulation contributions.
Material NCPs are substances, objects or other tangible elements provided by nature, which directly support life and are physically consumed upon their utilization [
21]. As summarized by Smith et al. [
23], examples of soil involvement in providing material NCPs include its roles in generating food for a growing global population [
24], in serving as water reservoirs [
25], and in providing genetic, medical, and biochemical resources [
26]. Sometimes also referred as cultural NCPs, non-material NCPs denote the intangible effects of nature on subjective or psychological aspects that support the quality of life for individuals and communities [
21]. McElwee [
27] described the myriad of ways in which soils influence artistic expressions (e.g., literature, cinema) and mental and physical well-being through a wide range of recreational activities. Moreover, these contributions extend also to cultural identities and practices, ranging from religious beliefs and rituals to language and politics. Despite their intricate nature and still vague quantification, soil-provided non-material NCPs are not less important for humanity than material NCPs [
23]. Regulation NCPs describe functional and structural attributes of organisms and ecosystems that alter environmental conditions and/or regulate the generation of material and non-material NCPs [
21]. For example, it was highlighted the importance of soils in regulating water quality [
28] and climate, by acting on source-sink dynamics of greenhouse gases and on water and radiative balances [
29].
In this context, the need to preserve soil health is self-evident, lest we forego the invaluable services and contributions it offers while also sidestepping the economic and social repercussions linked to its deterioration. Where prevention is no longer possible and soil degradation is unavoidable, the implementation of restoration strategies becomes in turn imperative. Restoration options for degraded soils include revegetation, reduction of grazing pressure, bioremediation, and recovery or maintenance of soil organic matter (SOM) levels [
23].
To date, the role of SOM in controlling the ability of soils to provide ecosystem services and sustaining societies at both global and local levels is well established [
30,
31,
32]. SOM is recognized as a crucial element affecting soil fertility and crop production, as well as mitigating contamination, degradation, erosion and desertification, especially in arid and semiarid regions [
33]. This is why the correlation between SOM and soil quality is universally acknowledged [
34]. Indeed, in spite of the usually poor definition of “quality” when it comes to soil, requiring multiple parameters for unbiased evaluations [
35], both the quantity and quality of SOM come remarkably close to ideal and comprehensive indicators of soil quality, since they directly and indirectly affect the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil [
36,
37].
2. Organic Matter Roles in Soil
Excluding living organisms, from a structural viewpoint SOM consists of any material originally produced by living organisms themselves that returns to the soil and undergoes humification or decomposition [
38], driven by abiotic factors and by the activity of heterotrophic microbial communities [
39,
40]. These processes determine the high reactivity and dynamism of SOM, that can be fed upon by a multitude of different organisms [
41,
42] as well as consumed and transformed by chemical and physical processes, such as leaching or photo-degradation [
43]. Interestingly, in spite of the diverse chemical composition of primary sources, the processes SOM undergoes in soil, mediated by the activity of soil communities, determine the convergence of its composition toward molecules with specific characteristics [
44], a process known as the “decomposer funnel” [
45]. Among these characteristics, there are [
46]: high aromaticity [
47], low C/N and C/P [
48] ratios, low energy content and high activation energy [
49]. In turn, the dynamical characteristics of SOM control microbial community biodiversity and dynamics [
50,
51], as well as the interaction with the mineral matrix [
39,
52], ultimately defining SOM functional roles within the soil ecosystem.
From a physical perspective, SOM is able to critically control the entirety of soil properties, such as structure, water retention, bulk density, porosity and susceptibility to erosion [
53,
54,
55], that are noticeably altered even by small variations in the amount of SOM [
37]. Indeed, SOM is able to bind soil particles [
56] both directly and indirectly by increasing the stabilizing capabilities of other compounds [
57], or by supporting the organisms involved in particle aggregation (e.g., fungal hyphae, roots, micro-, meso- and macrofauna) [
39]. In terms of soil chemical properties, SOM contributes to plant nutrition with the release of nutrients in bioavailable forms trough mineralization by microorganisms [
58]. Apart from environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, water and oxygen availability, nutrient release from SOM strictly depends on its chemical composition, e.g., the lower the C/N ratio, the more rapidly nitrogen will be released into the soil [
59]. Furthermore, the presence of charged functional groups (e.g., oxydril, carboxyl) on SOM molecules promotes cation exchange capacity (CEC) [
38], and buffers soil pH [
60]. Additionally, SOM is responsible for the adsorption and complexation processes that play a key role in modulating the availability of both nutrients and non-essential elements for plants [
61,
62].
The capability of SOM to sustain primary productivity and to increase environmental heterogeneity at micro- to macro-scales through soil structuring [
63], reflects on its capability to shape the biodiversity of both below- [
64,
65] and above-ground communities [
66], affecting in turn ecosystem functioning. In this context, the common correlation between the below-ground and above-ground biodiversity can be partially explained by the shared relationship with SOM [
67]. From these premises, strategies to preserve and increase SOM can be adopted as viable means to enhance soil diversity [
68]. Interestingly, the effects can be species-specific, resulting in the differential inhibition and promotion of different organisms. A remarkable example is the observed suppression of plant pathogens with concomitant promotion of saprophytes [
69].
3. Loss of Organic Matter and Soil Degradation
By impairing the overall properties and functioning of soil ecosystems, the loss of SOM critically promotes soil degradation [
61,
70,
71], which currently represents one of the most significant issues for 33% of terrestrial ecosystems worldwide [
43,
72,
73]. For instance, it represents a global challenge for agriculture, leading to estimated yearly reductions of up to 33.7 million tonnes in food production [
74], increased food insecurity, and prices of agricultural products raising by 0.4% to 3.5% worldwide [
75]. From an economy viewpoint, the global loss of ecosystem functions caused by soil degradation is estimated to costs approximately USD 10.6 × 10
12 per year [
76]. The loss of SOM commonly results from the unsustainable use of soils [
77] that leads to their physical, chemical, and biological deterioration, in turn impairing ecosystem functioning and determining substantial economic costs, which affect not only those who directly use soils, but also the society as a whole [
78].
The current steady degradation of soils can be traced back to the coupling of several dynamics at global scale, most notably the growing global population and urbanization. The need to feed an increasing number of people concentrated into ever enlarging cities led, on the one hand, to the direct destruction of soils [
63] and, on the other hand, to land use changes and the adoption of unsustainable food production practices [
75,
79]. For example, large swathes of European soils suffer from unsustainable management practices leading to a loss of their ability to provide ecological functions [
80]. The spatial separation between food production and consumption alone, determines a reduction of organic matter inputs to the soil in agroecosystems and a progressive depletion of SOM, a process further exacerbated by practices such as intensive tillage, overgrazing and slopeways downhill plowing [
81]. The actual rates of SOM loss and soil degradation, however, depend upon a complex interaction among demographic, technological, political, institutional and cultural factors [
82]. For example, poverty is usually associated to severe soil degradation, due to rapid population growth, reduced interest in soil conservation in the face of challenging living conditions and low funding for environmental protection [
82]. In turn soil degradation promotes poverty due to the increased costs of food production, the likelihood of famine and unstable social conditions, in a vicious cycle binding soil and societal health. Conversely, economic and social development tends to promote people’s awareness of the need of soil preservation, promoting conscious lifestyles, the adoption of sustainable soil management practices and of conservation strategies [
82].
The effects of unsustainable practices can be exacerbated by climate, as in the Mediterranean region, where soil temperature and moisture conditions accelerate respiration and mineralization, with the depletion of SOM [
83]. Global warming is expected to speed up the reduction of SOM, with the concomitant release of more CO
2 into the atmosphere and the further alteration of climate [
84]. In this context, the climate-increased frequency of wildfires is also able to promote soil degradation and desertification through SOM oxidation, a phenomenon, however, highly dependent upon temperature and fire residence time [
85]. As a further testament of the intricate relationships between climate and soil quality, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides its own precise definition of land degradation: “a negative shift in land condition due to direct or indirect human-induced activities resulting in a long-term reduction or loss of biological productivity, ecological integrity, or human value” [
86].
The paradox of land degradation, as most other forms of ecosystem alterations, lies in humans being both the main cause and the main victim simultaneously. However, by restoring SOM levels, humans can also contribute to the solution [
87].
4. Ecological Restoration through Organic Amendments
Ecological restoration represents the process of assisting ecosystems in the recovery from degradation, damage, or destruction [
88]. The earliest evidence of ecological restoration projects dates back to biblical times, with fallow land [
89]. In modern times, restoration has been used in a variety of ways to achieve a broad range of policy objectives. In the context of global environmental change, ecological restoration is increasingly being applied to restore ecological integrity and the provision of ecosystem services, resulting in large involvement of decision-makers in restoration initiatives [
89]. Restoration activities can target a wide variety of ecological systems through the application of different recovery strategies. In terrestrial ecosystems, this is usually achieved by focusing on the recovery of plant communities, due to their crucial control over ecosystem dynamics such as energy flow, hydrology, soil stability, habitat heterogeneity and spatial connectivity. In turn, such an outcome can be achieved through the recovery of soil ecosystem integrity and of the associated fertility, that commonly means acting on the replenishment of SOM through organic amendments [
66].
Organic amendment refers to the practice of adding heterogeneous sources of organic matter to the soil, with the aim to maintain or recover soil physical, chemical, biological, and ecological functionality [
90]. This approach encompasses various methods, from mulching to the application of products derived from organic wastes, biofertilizers and soil conditioners, varying in the concentration and composition of organic matter inputs and in their effectiveness [
71]. Originally developed as strategies to improve the fertility of agricultural soils [
91], organic amendments are increasingly being proven as viable and sustainable means to restore degraded soils and promote vegetation recovery in a variety of different ecosystems [
92,
93]. In addition to materials containing pools of available nutrients, such as compost or stabilized manure, alternatives that may not directly function as fertilizers in the short term, such as woody biomass, straw and other plant residues, are also useful to build up soil carbon stock and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, acting as soil conditioners, they contribute to improve soil structure and aggregate stability, due to the formation of new complexes between soil particles and organic matter [
94,
95]. Consequently, they indirectly improve porosity, bulk density, water retention, microbial biomass, activity and diversity and even reduce the bioavailability of both organic and inorganic contaminants, with positive effects on fertility [
39,
90,
94,
96,
97,
98,
99,
100,
101]. However, the negligible effects of conditioners on fertility and, in general, on several ecosystem processes in the short term, question their effectiveness whenever such actions are crucial for a quick recovery and support of ecosystem integrity [
102]. In this context, the abundance of labile carbon pools and available nutrients in urban, industrial and agricultural raw wastes make them, instead, potentially useful as organic amendments [
103] for the rapid enhancement of soil fertility. However, the presence of contaminants and pathogens, as well as the possible phytotoxic effects and microbial immobilisation of nutrients severely limit their applicability [
104]. Humus-like substances derived through the processing of organic wastes, instead, can be especially promising, but their characteristics are highly variable in relation to the source material and should meet strict requirements in terms of being free from contaminants, pathogens and phythotoxic effects [
103,
104,
105].
The differential effects elicited by different kinds of organic amendments underpin the importance of taking into account the type of organic inputs [
106,
107], rather than merely focusing on SOM levels in restoration actions. Indeed, the long-term increase in SOM levels depends on the persistence in soil of humified compounds, whose production does not follow a regular pattern and is strongly influenced by the source material in addition to weather and climate [
108]. The presence of lignin and cellulose, in particular, plays a crucial role in influencing this process and in building-up persistent SOM pools [
109]. Usually, a noticeable increase in soil organic carbon becomes apparent gradually, several months after the first application [
110]. In this context, the direct addition of organic matter containing humus-like molecules, such as compost, or recalcitrant carbon structures, such as biochar, can significantly reduce the time necessary to build-up persistant SOM pools.
Several successful ecological restoration programs have been implemented in different countries. Since 2012 China has made several efforts in this regard, resulting in the regeneration of many hectares of degraded land to restore plant communities and enhance soil carbon sequestration [
111]. In Iceland, documented restoration activities dates back to 1907, with 1800 Km
2 of restored area up to the 2010 and the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (SCSI) being one of the main actors in this process [
112]. In the Mediterranean area, The Restoring Mediterranean Forests Initiative consists of an innovative approach to protect and restore vulnerable ecosystems and has restored approximately two million hectares of forests in Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey since 2017 [
113]. The Accion Andina movement, led by the Association Ecosistemas Andinos (ECOAN), aims to protect and restore one million hectares of forest in South America to preserve the forest from different drivers of degradation [
114]. These are just a few examples of a movement that has become increasingly important globally in recent decades and will continue to be relevant in the future. In this context, however, long-term studies on ecosystem restoration trough SOM preservation/increase are crucial, since the recovery dynamics can unfold over several years. For example, while organic amendments are able to increase SOM in a short to medium time span, the effects on soil structure, hydrological regulation, vegetation growth and biodiversity can be appreciated over longer time spans [
94]. Moreover, the clarification of long-term dynamics holds significant social importance, as landowners often harbor skepticism towards soil management practices that do not provide immediate benefits [
115].
5. Remarks and Perspectives
Soil health and fertility represent both the basis for and the result of sustainable social, economic and political processes [
116]. Understanding the roles of SOM in promoting these processes facilitates the development of sustainable management strategies capable of restoring and preserving ecosystem integrity. The temporal horizon for these strategies should embrace not only the short term, but especially the long term support for the provision of ecosystem services from soils. Indeed, while farmers may be interested in adopting practices to maintain and improve SOM content with the goal of enhancing productivity, these actions should be included and organized into broader objectives of ensuring food security for a rising global population, maximizing economic returns, promoting nutritional diversity and conserving soil and water resources for future generations [
63,
116].
It’s not easy to determine general rules for including the management of SOM into these long-reaching objectives, because they depend not only on soil and climate factors, but also on social, economic and political contexts that are inherently heterogeneous among different nations and within them. As such, strategies to recover and preserve soil ecosystem integrity require the involvement of subjects acting at different levels, from land-owners acting at small scale, to citizens and entrepreneurs able to shape market dynamics, to researchers providing solid information, to policymakers defining large scale (spatial and temporal) goals. Indeed, there is a pressing need for coordination among subjects involved in soil management to establish effective communication channels, promoting the tackling of the complex and interdisciplinary soil issues [
117]. This is ever more crucial in the context of adapting policies to the changing global conditions [
118] and, especially, the current geopolitical shifts and realignments.
“
We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” — Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR) for funding, in the framework of the PRIN 2022 PNRR (M4 C2. Investment 1.1), the “EMBRACE” project (P20224W4XX) aimed at developing strategies for the recovery of degraded Mediterranean soils through organic amendments.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.N., A.B. and D.B.; Investigation, M.N., A.B. and D.B.; Writing— Original Draft Preparation, M.N.; Writing—Review & Editing, A.B. and D.B.; Supervision, A.B. and D.B.
Ethics Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this Opinion paper.
References
1.
Hanley N. Pricing Nature; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2009.
2.
McCauley DJ. Selling out on nature.
Nature 2006,
443, 27–28. doi:10.1038/443027a.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, et al. Twenty years of ecosystem services: Howfar have we come and how far do we still need to go?
Ecosyst. Serv. 2017,
28, 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.
[Google Scholar]
4.
Westman WE. How much are nature’s services worth?
Science 1977,
197, 960–964. doi:10.1126/science.197.4307.960.
[Google Scholar]
5.
Farley J. Ecosystem services: The economics debate.
Ecosyst. Serv. 2012,
1, 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.002.
[Google Scholar]
6.
Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Martín-López B, Barton DN, Gomez-Baggethun E, Boeraeve F, et al. A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions.
Ecosyst. Serv. 2016,
22, 213–220. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007.
[Google Scholar]
7.
Wegner G, Pascual U. Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique.
Global Environ. Chang. 2011,
21, 492–504. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.008.
[Google Scholar]
8.
van Wilgen BW, Cowling RM, Burgers CJ. Valuation of ecosystem services: A case study from South African fynbos ecosystems.
Bioscience 1996,
46, 184–189. doi:10.2307/1312739.
[Google Scholar]
9.
Chee YE. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services.
Biol. Conserv. 2004,
120, 549–565. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028.
[Google Scholar]
10.
Ellis GM, Fisher AC. Valuing the environment as input.
J. Environ. Manag. 1987,
25, 149–156.
[Google Scholar]
11.
Sinden JA, Sinden JA. A review of environmental valuation in Australia.
Rev. Mark. Agr. Econ. 1994,
62, 337–368. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.12320.
[Google Scholar]
12.
Garrod G, Willis KG. Economic Valuation of the Environment. No. 1368 in Books; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 1999.
13.
Mitchell RC. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods; RFF Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1989. doi:10.4324/9781315060569.
14.
Bingham G, Bishop R, Brody M, Bromley D, Clark ET, Cooper W, et al. Issues in ecosystem valuation: Improving information for decision making.
Ecol. Econ. 1995,
14, 73–90. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(95)00021-z.
[Google Scholar]
15.
Commission of the European Communities. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for the Protection of Soil and Amending Directive 2004/35/EC. COM/2006/0232 final—COD 2006/0086 ; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2006.
16.
Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A. A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils.
Ecol. Econ. 2010,
69, 1858–1868. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.002.
[Google Scholar]
17.
Brevik EC, Pereg L, Steffan JJ, Burgess LC. Soil ecosystem services and human health.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018,
5, 87–92. doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2018.07.003.
[Google Scholar]
18.
Pereira P, Bogunovic I, Muñoz-Rojas M, Brevik EC. Soil ecosystem services, sustainability, valuation and management.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018,
5, 7–13. doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2017.12.003.
[Google Scholar]
19.
Daily GC, Matson PA, Vitousek PM. Ecosystem Services Supplied by Soil, 2 ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 113–132.
20.
Baveye PC, Baveye J, Gowdy J. Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: Critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground.
Front. Environ. Sci. 2016,
4, 41. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041.
[Google Scholar]
21.
IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPBES Secr. 2019,
29, 1148. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3831673.
[Google Scholar]
22.
McElwee P, Calvin K, Campbell D, Cherubini F, Grassi G, Korotkov V, et al. The impact of interventions in the global land and agri-food sectors on Nature’s Contributions to People and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Global Chang. Biol. 2020,
26, 4691–4721. doi:10.1111/gcb.15219.
[Google Scholar]
23.
Smith P, Keesstra SD, Silver WL, Adhya TK. The role of soils in delivering Nature’s Contributions to People.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2021,
376, 20200169. doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0169.
[Google Scholar]
24.
Blum WEH, Swaran H. Soils for sustaining global food production.
J. Food Sci. 2004,
69, 37–42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb15490.x.
[Google Scholar]
25.
Reichardt K, Timm LC. The Soil as a Water Reservoir for Plants; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2019; pp. 15–48. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19322-5 3.
26.
Thiele-Bruhn S. The role of soils in provision of genetic, medicinal and biochemical resources.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2021,
376, 20200183. doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0183.
[Google Scholar]
27.
McElwee P. The role of soils in learning and inspiration, physical and psychological experiences, and in supporting identities.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2021,
376, 20200184. doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0184.
[Google Scholar]
28.
Cheng K, Xu X, Cui L, Li Y, Zheng J, Wu W, et al. The role of soils in regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2021,
376, 20200176. doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0176.
[Google Scholar]
29.
Lal R, Monger C, Nave L, Smith P. The role of soil in regulation of climate.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2021,
376, 20210084. doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0084.
[Google Scholar]
30.
Tiessen H, Cuevas E, Chacon P. The role of soil organic matter in sustaining soil fertility.
Nature 1994,
371, 783–785. doi:10.1038/371783a0.
[Google Scholar]
31.
Wolf B, Snyder G. Sustainable Soils; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003. doi:10.1201/9780367807443.
32.
Feller C, Manlay RJ, Swift MJ, Bernoux M. Functions, services and value of soil organic matter for human societies and the environment: A historical perspective.
Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2006,
266, 9–22. doi:10.1144/gsl.sp.2006.266.01.02.
[Google Scholar]
33.
Turrion MB, Lafuente F, Aroca MJ, López O, Mulas R, Ruipérez C. Characterization of soil phosphorus in a fire-affected forest Cambisol by chemical extractions and
31P-NMR spectroscopy analysis.
Sci. Total Environ. 2010,
408, 3342–3348. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.035.
[Google Scholar]
34.
Doran JW, Parkin TB. Defining and Assessing soil quality, Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, chap. 1. 2015; pp. 1–21. Available online: https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2136/sssaspecpub35.c1 (accessed on 19 January 2025).
35.
Doran JW, Parkin TB. Quantitative Indicators of Soil Quality: A Minimum Data Set, Soil Science Society of America. 2015; pp. 25–37. Available online: https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2136/sssaspecpub49.c2 (accessed on 19 January 2025).
36.
Salinas-Garcia JR, Hons FM, Matocha JE. Long-term effects of tillage and fertilization on soil organic matter dynamics.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997,
61, 152–159. doi:10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010023x.
[Google Scholar]
37.
Bellino A, Baldantoni D, De Nicola F, Iovieno P, Zaccardelli M, Alfani A. Compost amendments in agricultural ecosystems: Confirmatory path analysis to clarify the effects on soil chemical and biological properties.
J. Agric. Sci. 2014,
153, 282–295. doi:10.1017/s0021859614000033.
[Google Scholar]
38.
Bot A, Benites J. The Importance of Soil Organic Matter. No. 80 in FAO Soils Bulletin; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2005.
39.
Hoffland E, Kuyper TW, Comans RNJ, Creamer RE. Eco-functionality of organic matter in soils.
Plant Soil 2020,
455, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s11104-020-04651-9.
[Google Scholar]
40.
Bashir O, Ali T, Baba ZA, Rather GH, Bangroo SA, Mukhtar SD, et al. Soil Organic Matter and Its Impact on Soil Properties and Nutrient Status; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2021; pp. 129–159. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61010-4 7.
41.
Yuan Q, Hernández M, Dumont MG, Rui J, Fernández Scavino A, Conrad R. Soil bacterial community mediates the effect of plant material on methanogenic decomposition of soil organic matter.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018,
116, 99–109. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.10.004.
[Google Scholar]
42.
Wang C, Kuzyakov Y. Energy use efficiency of soil microorganisms: Driven by carbon recycling and reduction.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 2023,
29, 6170–6187. doi:10.1111/gcb.16925.
[Google Scholar]
43.
Lal R. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation.
Sustainability 2015,
7, 5875–5895. doi:10.3390/su7055875.
[Google Scholar]
44.
Kallenbach CM, Frey SD, Grandy AS. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls.
Nat. Commun. 2016,
7, 13630. doi:10.1038/ncomms13630.
[Google Scholar]
45.
Swift MJ, Heal OW, Anderson JM. Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1979. doi:10.1525/9780520407114.
46.
Fierer N, Grandy AS, Six J, Paul EA. Searching for unifying principles in soil ecology.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009,
41, 2249–2256. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.06.009.
[Google Scholar]
47.
Demyan MS, Rasche F, Schulz E, Breulmann M, Müller T, Cadisch G. Use of specific peaks obtained by diffuse reflectance Fourier transform mid-infrared spectroscopy to study the composition of organic matter in a Haplic Chernozem.
Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2012,
63, 189–199. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01420.x.
[Google Scholar]
48.
Xu X, Thornton PE, Post WM. A global analysis of soil microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in terrestrial ecosystems.
Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2012,
22, 737–749. doi:10.1111/geb.12029.
[Google Scholar]
49.
Barré P, Plante AF, Cécillon L, Lutfalla S, Baudin F, Bernard S, et al. The energetic and chemical signatures of persistent soil organic matter.
Biogeochemistry 2016,
130, 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10533-016-0246-0.
[Google Scholar]
50.
Burns RG, DeForest JL, Marxsen J, Sinsabaugh RL, Stromberger ME, Wallenstein MD, et al. Soil enzymes in a changing environment: Current knowledge and future directions.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013,
58, 216–234. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.11.009.
[Google Scholar]
51.
Bonanomi G, De Filippis F, Cesarano G, La Storia A, Zotti M, Mazzoleni S, et al. Linking bacterial and eukaryotic microbiota to litter chemistry: Combining next generation sequencing with
13C CPMAS NMR spectroscopy.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019,
129, 110–121. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.11.013.
[Google Scholar]
52.
Mikutta R, Kleber M, Torn MS, Jahn R. Stabilization of soil organic matter: Association with minerals or chemical recalcitrance?
Biogeochemistry 2006,
77, 25–56. doi:10.1007/s10533-005-0712-6.
[Google Scholar]
53.
Martens DA, Frankenberger WT. Modification of infiltration rates in an organic-amended irrigated.
Agron. J. 1992,
84, 707–717. doi:10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400040032x.
[Google Scholar]
54.
Cotrufo MF, Lavallee JM. Soil organic matter formation, persistence, and functioning: A synthesis of current understanding to inform its conservation and regeneration.
Adv. Agron. 2022,
172, 1–66 . doi:10.1016/bs.agron.2021.11.002.
[Google Scholar]
55.
Widowati, Sutoyo, Karamina H, Fikrinda W. Soil amendment impact to soil organic matter and physical properties on the three soil types after second corn cultivation.
AIMS Agric. Food 2020,
5, 150–168. doi:10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.150.
[Google Scholar]
56.
Eden M, Gerke HH, Houot S. Organic waste recycling in agriculture and related effects on soil water retention and plant available water: A review.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017,
37, 1–21. doi:10.1007/s13593-017-0419-9.
[Google Scholar]
57.
Erktan A, Balmot J, Merino-Mart´ın L, Monnier Y, Pailler F, Coq S, et al. Immediate and long-term effect of tannins on the stabilization of soil aggregates.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017,
105, 197–205. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.11.017.
[Google Scholar]
58.
Goulding K, Jarvis S, Whitmore A. Optimizing nutrient management for farm systems.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2008,
363, 667–680. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2177.
[Google Scholar]
59.
Watson CA, Atkinson D, Gosling P, Jackson LR, Rayns FW. Managing soil fertility in organic farming systems.
Soil Use Manag. 2002,
18 (s1), 239–247. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2002.tb00265.x.
[Google Scholar]
60.
Weil RR, Magdoff F. Significance of Soil Organic Matter to Soil Quality and Health; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; pp. 1–43. doi:10.1201/9780203496374.
61.
Ahmed AA, Thiele-Bruhn S, Aziz SG, Hilal RH, Elroby SA, Al-Youbi AO, et al. Interaction of polar and nonpolar organic pollutants with soil organic matter: Sorption experiments and molecular dynamics simulation.
Sci. Total Environ. 2015,
508, 276–287. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.087.
[Google Scholar]
62.
Marzaioli R, Trifuoggi M, Rutigliano FA. Soil microbial biomass, activities and diversity in Southern Italy areas chronically exposed to trace element input from industrial and agricultural activities.
Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022,
174, 104392. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104392.
[Google Scholar]
63.
Obalum SE, Chibuike GU, Peth S, Ouyang Y. Soil organic matter as sole indicator of soil degradation.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017,
189, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10661-017-5881-y.
[Google Scholar]
64.
Bellino A, Baldantoni D, Picariello E, Morelli R, Alfani A, De Nicola F. Role of different microorganisms in remediating PAH-contaminated soils treated with compost or fungi.
J. Environ. Manag. 2019,
252, 109675. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109675.
[Google Scholar]
65.
Picariello E, Pucci L, Carotenuto M, Libralato G, Lofrano G, Baldantoni D. Compost and sewage sludge for the improvement of soil chemical and biological quality of Mediterranean agroecosystems.
Sustainability 2021,
13, 26. doi:10.3390/su13010026.
[Google Scholar]
66.
Baldantoni D, Bellino A, Morra L, Alfani A. Compost amendment enhances natural revegetation of a Mediterranean degraded agricultural soil.
Environ. Manag. 2015,
56, 946–956. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0539-4.
[Google Scholar]
67.
Venter ZS, Jacobs K, Hawkins HJ. The impact of crop rotation on soil microbial diversity: A meta-analysis.
Pedobiologia 2016,
59, 215–223. doi:10.1016/j.pedobi.2016.04.001.
[Google Scholar]
68.
Gong X, Liu C, Li J, Luo Y, Yang Q, Zhang W, et al. Responses of rhizosphere soil properties, enzyme activities and microbial diversity to intercropping patterns on the Loess Plateau of China.
Soil Till. Res. 2019,
195, 104355. doi:10.1016/j.still.2019.104355.
[Google Scholar]
69.
Fageria NK. Role of soil organic matter in maintaining sustainability of cropping systems. Commun.
Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2012,
43, 2063–2113. doi:10.1080/00103624.2012.697234.
[Google Scholar]
70.
Dominy C, Haynes R, van Antwerpen R. Loss of soil organic matter and related soil properties under long-term sugarcane production on two contrasting soils.
Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002,
36, 350–356. doi:10.1007/s00374-002-0538-5.
[Google Scholar]
71.
Hueso-González P, Muñoz-Rojas M, Martínez-Murillo JF. The role of organic amendments in drylands restoration.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018,
5, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2017.12.002.
[Google Scholar]
72.
Hediger W. Sustainable farm income in the presence of soil erosion: An agricultural Hartwick rule.
Ecol. Econ. 2003,
45, 221–236. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00010-7.
[Google Scholar]
73.
Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security.
Science 2004,
304, 1623–1627. doi:10.1126/science.1097396.
[Google Scholar]
74.
Sartori M, Philippidis G, Ferrari E, Borrelli P, Lugato E, Montanarella L, et al. A linkage between the biophysical and the economic: Assessing the global market impacts of soil erosion.
Land Use Policy 2019,
86, 299–312. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.014.
[Google Scholar]
75.
Istanbuly MN, Krása J, Jabbarian Amiri B. How socio-economic drivers explain landscape soil erosion regulation services inPolish catchments.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,
19, 2372. doi:10.3390/ijerph19042372.
[Google Scholar]
76.
Amoah-Antwi C, Kwiatkowska-Malina J, Thornton SF, Fenton O, Malina G, Szara E. Restoration of soil quality using biochar and brown coal waste: A review.
Sci. Total Environ. 2020,
722, 137852. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137852.
[Google Scholar]
77.
Papanicolaou ANT, Wilson CG, Abaci O, Elhakeem M, Skopec M. SOM loss and soil quality in the Clear Creek, IA.
J. Iowa Acad. Sci. 2009,
116, 14–26.
[Google Scholar]
78.
Graves AR, Morris J, Deeks LK, Rickson RJ, Kibblewhite MG, Harris JA, et al. The total costs of soil degradation in England and Wales.
Ecol. Econ. 2015,
119, 399–413. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.026.
[Google Scholar]
79.
Aguilera E, Lassaletta L, Gattinger A, Gimeno BS. Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013,
168, 25–36. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003.
[Google Scholar]
80.
European Commission Directorate General for Research and Innovation. Caring for Soil Is Caring for Life: Ensure 75% of Soils Are Healthy by 2030 for Food, People, Nature and Climate. Report of the Mission Board for Soil Health and Food; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. doi:10.2777/821504.
81.
Haddaway NR, Hedlund K, Jackson LE, Kätterer T, Lugato E, Thomsen IK, et al. How does tillage intensity affect soilorganic carbon? a systematic review.
Environ. Evid. 2017,
6, 1–48. doi:10.1186/s13750-017-0108-9.
[Google Scholar]
82.
Sun Y, Xiao J, Zhang Y, Lai W, Wei M, Wang J. Research progress on soil erosion and socioeconomic correlation.
E3S Web Conf. 2020,
145, 02031. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202014502031.
[Google Scholar]
83.
González-Ubierna S, Lai R. Modelling the effects of climate factors on soil respiration across Mediterranean ecosystems.
J.Arid. Environ. 2019,
165, 46–54. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2019.02.008.
[Google Scholar]
84.
Popin GV, Santos AKB, Oliveira TdP, de Camargo PB, Cerri CEP, Siqueira-Neto M. Sugarcane straw management for bioenergy: Effects of global warming on greenhouse gas emissions and soil carbon storage.
Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2020,
25, 559–577. doi:10.1007/s11027-019-09880-7.
[Google Scholar]
85.
Girona-García A, Ortiz-Perpiñá O, Badía-Villas D. Dynamics of topsoil carbon stocks after prescribed burning for pasture restoration in shrublands of the Central Pyrenees (NE-Spain).
J. Environ. Manag. 2019,
233, 695–705. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.057.
[Google Scholar]
86.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change and Land: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. doi:10.1017/9781009157988.
87.
Navarro-Pedreño J, Almendro-Candel MB, Zorpas AA. The increase of soil organic matter reduces global warming, myth orreality?
Science 2021,
3, 18. doi:10.3390/sci3010018.
[Google Scholar]
88.
Society for Ecological Restoration. Restoration Resource Center What Is Ecological Restoration? ; Society for Ecological Restoration: Washington, DC, USA.
89.
Baker S, Eckerberg K, Zachrisson A. Political science and ecological restoration.
Environ. Polit. 2014,
23, 509–524. doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.835201.
[Google Scholar]
90.
Shu X, He J, Zhou Z, Xia L, Hu Y, Zhang Y, et al. Organic amendments enhance soil microbial diversity, microbial functionality and crop yields: A meta-analysis.
Sci. Total Environ. 2022,
829, 154627. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154627.
[Google Scholar]
91.
Chen J, Lü S, Zhang Z, Zhao X, Li X, Ning P, et al. Environmentally friendly fertilizers: A review of materials used and their effects on the environment.
Sci. Total Environ. 2018,
613, 829–839. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.186.
[Google Scholar]
92.
Donn S, Wheatley RE, McKenzie BM, Loades KW, Hallett PD. Improved soil fertility from compost amendment increases root growth and reinforcement of surface soil on slopes.
Ecol. Eng. 2014,
71, 458–465. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.07.066.
[Google Scholar]
93.
Singh TB, Ali A, Prasad M, Yadav A, Shrivastav P, Goyal D, et al. Role of Organic Fertilizers in Improving Soil Fertility; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 61–77. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41552-5 3.
94.
Dong L, Zhang W, Xiong Y, Zou J, Huang Q, Xu X, et al. Impact of short-term organic amendments incorporation on soil structure and hydrology in semiarid agricultural lands.
Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2022,
10, 457–469. doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.10.003.
[Google Scholar]
95.
Rahman MT, Zhu QH, Zhang ZB, Zhou H, Peng X. The roles of organic amendments and microbial community in the improvement of soil structure of a Vertisol.
Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017,
111, 84–93. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.11.018.
[Google Scholar]
96.
Albiach R, Canet R, Pomares F, Ingelmo F. Microbial biomass content and enzymatic activities after the application of organic amendments to a horticultural soil.
Bioresour. Technol. 2000,
75, 43–48. doi:10.1016/s0960-8524(00)00030-4.
[Google Scholar]
97.
Tejada M, Hernandez M, Garcia C. Soil restoration using composted plant residues: Effects on soil properties.
Soil Till. Res. 2009,
102, 109–117. doi:10.1016/j.still.2008.08.004.
[Google Scholar]
98.
Bonanomi G, Cesarano G, Antignani V, Di Maio C, De Filippis F, Scala F. Conventional farming impairs
Rhizoctonia solani disease suppression by disrupting soil food web.
J. Phytopathol. 2018,
166, 663–673. doi:10.1111/jph.12729.
[Google Scholar]
99.
Gómez-Sagasti MT, Epelde L, Anza M, Urra J, Alkorta I, Garbisu C. The impact of nanoscale zero-valent iron particles onsoil microbial communities is soil dependent.
J. Hazard. Mater. 2019,
364, 591–599. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.10.034.
[Google Scholar]
100.
Guerrini IA, Sampaio TF, Bogiani JC, Backes C, Harrison RB, Oliveira FC, et al. Sewage sludge as a pedotechnomaterial for the recovery of soils compacted by heavy machinery on Eucalyptus commercial plantation.
J. Clean. Prod. 2021,
325, 129320. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129320.
[Google Scholar]
101.
Zhang X, Qian H, Hua K, Chen H, Deng A, Song Z, et al. Organic amendments increase crop yield while mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from the perspective of carbon fees in a soybean-wheat system.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022,
325, 107736. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2021.107736.
[Google Scholar]
102.
Scott B, Baldwin AH, Ballantine K, Palmer M, Yarwood S. The role of organic amendments in wetland restorations.
Restor. Ecol. 2020,
28, 776–784. doi:10.1111/rec.13179.
[Google Scholar]
103.
Paradelo R, Navarro-Pedreño J, Glaser B, Grobelak A, Kowalska A, Singh BR. Potential and constraints of use of organicamendments from agricultural residues for improvement of soil properties.
Sustainability 2023,
16, 158. doi:10.3390/su16010158.
[Google Scholar]
104.
Brust GE. Management Strategies for Organic Vegetable Fertility; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 193–212. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-812060-6.00009-X.
105.
Siles JA, De la Rosa JM, González-Pérez JA, Fernández-Pérez V, García-Díaz C, Moreno JL, et al. Long-term restoration with organic amendments is clearer evidenced by soil organic matter composition than by changes in microbial taxonomy and functionality.
Appl. Soil Ecol. 2024,
198, 105383. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2024.105383.
[Google Scholar]
106.
Ferreras L, Gomez E, Toresani S, Firpo I, Rotondo R. Effect of organic amendments on some physical, chemical and biological properties in a horticultural soil.
Bioresour. Technol. 2006,
97, 635–640. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.03.018.
[Google Scholar]
107.
Pérez-Lomas AL, Delgado G, Párraga J, Delgado R, Almendros G, Aranda V. Evolution of organic matter fractions after application of co-compost of sewage sludge with pruning waste to four Mediterranean agricultural soils. A soil microcosm experiment.
Waste Manag. 2010,
30, 1957–1965. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.030.
[Google Scholar]
108.
Hueso-González P, Martínez-Murillo JF, Ruiz-Sinoga JD. The impact of organic amendments on forest soil properties under Mediterranean climatic conditions.
Land Degrad. Dev. 2014,
25, 604–612. doi:10.1002/ldr.2296.
[Google Scholar]
109.
González-Ubierna S, Jorge-Mardomingo I, Carrero-González B, de la Cruz MT, Casermeiro MA. Soil organic matter evolutionafter the application of high doses of organic amendments in a Mediterranean calcareous soil.
J. Soils Sediments 2012,
12, 1257–1268. doi:10.1007/s11368-012-0516-y.
[Google Scholar]
110.
Jordán A, Zavala LM, Gil J. Effects of mulching on soil physical properties and runoff under semi-arid conditions in southern Spain.
Catena 2010,
81, 77–85. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2010.01.007.
[Google Scholar]
111.
Xiao Q, Hu D, Xiao Y. Assessing changes in soil conservation ecosystem services and causal factors in the Three Gorges Reservoir region of China.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017,
163, S172–S180. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.012.
[Google Scholar]
112.
Aradóttir AL, Petursdottir T, Halldorsson G, Svavarsdottir K, Arnalds O. Drivers of ecological restoration: Lessons from a century of restoration in Iceland.
Ecol. Soc. 2013,
18, 33. doi:10.5751/ES-05946-180433.
[Google Scholar]
113.
UN Decade on Restoration. Restoring Mediterranean forests. Available online: https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/restoring-mediterranean-forests (accessed on 18 July 2024).
114.
UN Decade on Restoration. Acci´on Andina. Available online: https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/accion-andina#: :text=Acci%C3%B3n%20Andina%20is%20a%20social,community%2Dled%20restoration%20of%20nature. (accessed on 18 July 2024).
115.
Hijbeek R, Pronk AA, van Ittersum MK, Verhagen A, Ruysschaert G, Bijttebier J, et al. Use of organic inputs by arable farmers in six agro-ecological zones across Europe: Drivers and barriers.
Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019,
275, 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2019.01.008.
[Google Scholar]
116.
Ayuk ET. Social, Economic and Policy Dimensions of Soil Organic Matter Management in Sub-Sahara Africa: Challenges and Opportunities; Springer: Cham, The Netherlands, 2001; Volume 61, pp. 183–195. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2172-1 17.
117.
DeLong C, Cruse R, Wiener J. The soil degradation paradox: Compromising our resources when we need them the most.
Sustainability 2015,
7, 866–879. doi:10.3390/su7010866.
[Google Scholar]
118.
Powlson DS, Gregory PJ, Whalley WR, Quinton JN, Hopkins DW, Whitmore AP, et al. Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services.
Food Policy 2011,
36, S72–S87. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.025.
[Google Scholar]
