IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i20p5706-d276916.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of the Soil Security Concept to Two Contrasting Soil Landscape Systems—Implications for Soil Capability and Sustainable Land Management

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Murphy

    (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, P.O. Box 445, Cowra, NSW 2794, Australia)

  • Peter Fogarty

    (Soil and Land Conservation Consulting Pty Ltd, P.O. Box 485, Jamison, ACT 2614, Australia)

Abstract

Soil security identifies global challenges and a series of dimensions that are necessary requirements to meet those global challenges using sustainable land management. The soil security concept is applied to two contrasting soil landscape systems with varying climate, landform and soil types. Previous methodologies for assessing land and soil capability are combined within the soil security conceptual approach. The land and soil capability methodologies are used to assess how the soil condition changes in response to the stresses and forcing associated with land management and land and soil degradation processes. It is the soil capability that defines how the soil condition changes between the reference state of the soil condition, or the genoform, and the soil condition under land use, or the phenoform. The conclusion is that soil capability, which is one of the dimensions used to apply the soil security concept, is a complex dimension and has several aspects or further facets to be considered to achieve sustainable land management. It is apparent that in assessing soil capability, the following facets are relevant. I: The capacity of the soil to provide ecosystem services to meet the global challenges outlined for Soil Security. II: The stability of the soil condition to land degradation processes resulting from the effects of land management practices and the environmental stresses on the soil. III: The capacity to recover following degradation. Facets II and III can be considered the resilience. An important conclusion is that the soil capability cannot be assessed without taking into account features of the landscape including climate and landform. Two examples from south eastern Australia of the application of these facets of soil capability to on-ground situations are presented. The Cowra Trough Red Soils in the Australian wheat belt are a set of soils, primarily contributing to meeting the global challenge of food security. The major degradation processes threatening the stability of these soils are water erosion and soil acidification. The Kosciusko National Park in the Snowy Mountains region is primarily contributing to meeting the challenges of water security for the irrigation industry in the Murray Darling Basins and energy security through the production of hydroelectricity. The set of soil landscapes also contributes to biodiversity protection and human health and well-being. The major degradation processes threatening the stability of these soils and their capacity to meet the global challenges are water and wind erosion. A major limitation is the poor capacity of these soils to recover once degraded. Identifying the main ecosystem services provided by the two examples, together with the major risks of land degradation can clarify extension, economic and policy aspects of sustainable land management for the two sets of soil landscapes. For the Cowra Trough Red Soils, management of water erosion and soil acidification are essential for maintaining the contribution of the area to food security. For the Kosciusko National Park, the control of water and wind erosion are essential to maintain the contribution of the area to water and energy security.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Murphy & Peter Fogarty, 2019. "Application of the Soil Security Concept to Two Contrasting Soil Landscape Systems—Implications for Soil Capability and Sustainable Land Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-30, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5706-:d:276916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5706/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/20/5706/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex. B. McBratney & Damien Field & Cristine L.S. Morgan & Jingyi Huang, 2019. "On Soil Capability, Capacity, and Condition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, June.
    2. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    3. John McLean Bennett & Alex McBratney & Damien Field & Darren Kidd & Uta Stockmann & Craig Liddicoat & Samantha Grover, 2019. "Soil Security for Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cristiano Franceschinis & Ulf Liebe & Mara Thiene & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Damien Field & Alex McBratney, 2022. "The effect of social and personal norms on stated preferences for multiple soil functions: evidence from Australia and Italy," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 335-362, April.
    2. Andrea Koch & Alex McBratney & Mark Adams & Damien Field & Robert Hill & John Crawford & Budiman Minasny & Rattan Lal & Lynette Abbott & Anthony O'Donnell & Denis Angers & Jeffrey Baldock & Edward Bar, 2013. "Soil Security: Solving the Global Soil Crisis," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 4(4), pages 434-441, November.
    3. Schon, N.L. & Dominati, E.J., 2020. "Valuing earthworm contribution to ecosystem services delivery," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    4. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    5. Livia Marchetti & Valentina Cattivelli & Claudia Cocozza & Fabio Salbitano & Marco Marchetti, 2020. "Beyond Sustainability in Food Systems: Perspectives from Agroecology and Social Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    6. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Samaneh Sadat Nickayin & Francesca Perrone & Barbara Ermini & Giovanni Quaranta & Rosanna Salvia & Filippo Gambella & Gianluca Egidi, 2021. "Soil Quality and Peri-Urban Expansion of Cities: A Mediterranean Experience (Athens, Greece)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, February.
    8. Antoine Vialle & Mario Giampieri, 2020. "Mapping Urbanization as an Anthropedogenetic Process: A Section through the Times of Urban Soils," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 262-279.
    9. Veronica Manganiello & Alessandro Banterle & Gabriele Canali & Geremia Gios & Giacomo Branca & Sofia Galeotti & Fabrizio De Filippis & Raffaella Zucaro, 2021. "Economic characterization of irrigated and livestock farms in The Po River Basin District," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 23(3), pages 1-24.
    10. Quatrini, Simone, 2021. "Challenges and opportunities to scale up sustainable finance after the COVID-19 crisis: Lessons and promising innovations from science and practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    11. Gauri Shankar Gupta, 2019. "Land Degradation and Challenges of Food Security," Review of European Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-63, December.
    12. Daniel Toth & Jaroslava Janků & Adéla Marie Marhoul & Josef Kozák & Mansoor Maitah & Jan Jehlička & Lukáš Řeháček & Richard Přikryl & Tomáš Herza & Jan Vopravil & David Kincl & Tomáš Khel, 2023. "Soil quality assessment using SAS (Soil Assessment System)," Soil and Water Research, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15.
    13. Fielke, Simon J. & Kaye-Blake, William & Mackay, Alec & Smith, Willie & Rendel, John & Dominati, Estelle, 2018. "Learning from resilience research: Findings from four projects in New Zealand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 322-333.
    14. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    15. Brady, Mark & Hedlund, Katarina & Cong, Rong-Gang & Hemerik, Lia & Hotes, Stefan & Machado, Stephen & Mattsson, Lennart & Schulz, Elke & Thomsen, Ingrid K., 2015. "Valuing Supporting Soil Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: a Natural Capital Approach," MPRA Paper 112303, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Keith, Aidan M. & Schmidt, Olaf & McMahon, Barry J., 2016. "Soil stewardship as a nexus between Ecosystem Services and One Health," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 40-42.
    17. Franceschinis, Cristiano & Liebe, Ulf & Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jurgen & Field, Damien & McBratney, Alex, 2022. "The effect of social and personal norms on stated preferences for multiple soil functions: evidence from Australia and Italy," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(02), January.
    18. Anne C. Richer-de-Forges & Dominique Arrouays & Marion Bardy & Antonio Bispo & Philippe Lagacherie & Bertrand Laroche & Blandine Lemercier & Joëlle Sauter & Marc Voltz, 2019. "Mapping of Soils and Land-Related Environmental Attributes in France: Analysis of End-Users’ Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, May.
    19. Greenhalgh, S. & Samarasinghe, O. & Curran-Cournane, F. & Wright, W. & Brown, P., 2017. "Using ecosystem services to underpin cost–benefit analysis: Is it a way to protect finite soil resources?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 1-14.
    20. repec:caa:jnlage:v:preprint:id:281-2023-agricecon is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Dardonville, Manon & Legrand, Baptiste & Clivot, Hugues & Bernardin, Claire & Bockstaller, Christian & Therond, Olivier, 2022. "Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:20:p:5706-:d:276916. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.