SSSAJ Grow Your Career with SSSA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (20)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Andrews, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Cambardella, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Andrews, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Cambardella, C. A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Andrews, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Cambardella, C. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Soil Management
Right arrow Experiment Design
Right arrow Site-Specific Analysis
Published in Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:1945-1962 (2004).
© 2004 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA

Division S-6—Soil & Water Management & Conservation

The Soil Management Assessment Framework

A Quantitative Soil Quality Evaluation Method

Susan S. Andrewsa,*, Douglas L. Karlenb and Cynthia A. Cambardellab

a USDA-NRCS, Soil Quality Institute, 2150 Pammel Dr., Ames, IA 50011-4420
b USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Lab., 2150 Pammel Dr., Ames, IA 50011-4420

* Corresponding author (andrews{at}nstl.gov)

Erosion rates and annual soil loss tolerance (T) values in evaluations of soil management practices have served as focal points for soil quality (SQ) research and assessment programs for decades. Our objective is to enhance and extend current soil assessment efforts by presenting a framework for assessing the impact of soil management practices on soil function. The tool consists of three steps: indicator selection, indicator interpretation, and integration into an index. The tool's framework design allows researchers to continually update and refine the interpretations for many soils, climates, and land use practices. The tool was demonstrated using data from case studies in Georgia, Iowa, California, and the Pacific Northwest (WA, ID, OR). Using an expert system of decision rules as an indicator selection step successfully identified indicators for the minimum data set (MDS) in the case study data sets. In the indicator interpretation step, observed indicator data were transformed into unitless scores based on site-specific algorithmic relationships to soil function. The scored data resulted in scientifically defensible and statistically different treatment means in the four case studies. The efficacy of the indicator interpretation step was evaluated with stepwise regressions using scored and observed indicators as independent variables and endpoint data as iterative dependent variables. Scored indicators usually had coefficients of determination (R2) that were similar or greater than those of the observed indicator values. In some cases, the R2 values for indicators and endpoint regressions were higher when examined for individual treatments rather than the entire data set. This study demonstrates significant progress toward development of a SQ assessment framework for adaptive soil resource management or monitoring that is transferable to a variety of climates, soil types, and soil management systems.

Abbreviations: AGG, water-stable aggregates • AWC, plant-available water-holding capacity • Db, bulk density • EC, electrical conductivity • MBC, microbial biomass C • MDS, minimum data set • NRI, Natural Resources Inventory • PMN, potentially mineralizable N • R2, coefficient of determination • SMAF, Soil Management Assessment Framework • SOM, soil organic matter • SQ, soil quality • T, soil loss tolerance • SAR, sodium adsorption ratio • TOC, total organic C • WS, watershed




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
B. N. Moebius-Clune, H. M. van Es, O. J. Idowu, R. R. Schindelbeck, D. J. Moebius-Clune, D. W. Wolfe, G. S. Abawi, J. E. Thies, B. K. Gugino, and R. Lucey
Long-Term Effects of Harvesting Maize Stover and Tillage on Soil Quality
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., May 29, 2008; 72(4): 960 - 969.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Agron. J.Home page
D. L. Karlen, E. G. Hurley, S. S. Andrews, C. A. Cambardella, D. W. Meek, M. D. Duffy, and A. P. Mallarino
Crop Rotation Effects on Soil Quality at Three Northern Corn/Soybean Belt Locations
Agron. J., April 11, 2006; 98(3): 484 - 495.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
B. J. Wienhold
Changes in Soil Attributes Following Low Phosphorus Swine Slurry Application to No-Tillage Sorghum
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., January 1, 2005; 69(1): 206 - 214.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Vadose Zone Journal Journal of Plant Registrations
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Journal of
Environmental Quality
Copyright © 2004 by the Soil Science Society of America.