University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Agronomy & Horticulture -- Faculty Publications Agronomy and Horticulture Department

6-7-2000

Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic

component of soil quality
John W. Doran
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Michael R. Zeiss
FAO IPM Programme

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agronomyfacpub

Part of the Plant Sciences Commons

Doran, John W. and Zeiss, Michael R., "Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic component of soil quality" (2000).
Agronomy & Horticulture -- Faculty Publications. Paper 15.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agronomyfacpub/15

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agronomy and Horticulture Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -
Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Agronomy & Horticulture -- Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
 Applied Soil Ecology 15 (2000) 3–11

Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic

component of soil quality
John W. Doran a,∗ , Michael R. Zeiss b
a USDA-ARS, 116 Keim Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA
b FAO IPM Programme, 3 Nguyen Gia Thieu, Hanoi, Viet Nam

Abstract
Soil health is the capacity of soil to function as a vital living system, within ecosystem and land-use boundaries, to sustain
plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health. Anthropogenic
reductions in soil health, and of individual components of soil quality, are a pressing ecological concern. A conference entitled
‘Soil Health: Managing the Biological Component of Soil Quality’ was held was held in the USA in November 1998 to help
increase awareness of the importance and utility of soil organisms as indicators of soil quality and determinants of soil health.
To evaluate sustainability of agricultural practices, assessment of soil health using various indicators of soil quality is needed.
Soil organism and biotic parameters (e.g. abundance, diversity, food web structure, or community stability) meet most of the
five criteria for useful indicators of soil quality. Soil organisms respond sensitively to land management practices and climate.
They are well correlated with beneficial soil and ecosystem functions including water storage, decomposition and nutrient
cycling, detoxification of toxicants, and suppression of noxious and pathogenic organisms. Soil organisms also illustrate the
chain of cause and effect that links land management decisions to ultimate productivity and health of plants and animals.
Indicators must be comprehensible and useful to land managers, who are the ultimate stewards of soil quality and soil health.
Visible organisms such as earthworms, insects, and molds have historically met this criterion. Finally, indicators must be easy
and inexpensive to measure, but the need for knowledge of taxonomy complicates the measurement of soil organisms. Several
farmer-participatory programs for managing soil quality and health have incorporated abiotic and simple biotic indicators.
The challenge for the future is to develop sustainable management systems which are the vanguard of soil health; soil quality
indicators are merely a means towards this end. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
Keywords: Soil health; Soil quality; Ecosystem functions

1. Introduction maintenance of local, regional, and global environ-

mental quality (Glanz, 1995). Soil is also the basis of
Interest in evaluating the quality and health of agricultural and of natural plant communities. Thus,
our soil resources has been stimulated by increasing the thin layer of soil covering the surface of the earth
awareness that soil is a critically important compo- represents the difference between survival and ex-
nent of the earth’s biosphere, functioning not only tinction for most land-based life (Doran et al., 1996).
in the production of food and fiber but also in the However, inventories of soil productive capacity in-
dicate human-induced degradation on nearly 40% of
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-402-472-1510; the world’s agricultural land as a result of soil ero-
fax: +1-402-472-0516. sion, atmospheric pollution, extensive soil cultiva-
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.W. Doran) tion, over-grazing, land clearing, salinization, and

0929-1393/00/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

PII: S 0 9 2 9 - 1 3 9 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 7 - 6
4 J.W. Doran, M.R. Zeiss / Applied Soil Ecology 15 (2000) 3–11

desertification (Oldeman, 1994). Indeed, degradation CO2 to the atmosphere (Houghton et al., 1983). Fur-
and loss of productive agricultural land is one of our ther, the projected doubling of the human population in
most pressing ecological concerns, rivaled only by the next century threatens accelerated degradation of
human caused environmental problems like global soils and other natural resources (Power, 1996). Thus,
climate change, depletion of the protective ozone to preserve agriculture for future generations, we must
layer, and serious declines in biodiversity (Lal, 1998). develop production systems that conserve and enhance
Soil quality has been defined by the Soil Science soil quality.
Society of America Ad Hoc Committee on soil qual- As a small step towards this end, a conference
ity (S-581) as ‘the capacity of a specific kind of soil to entitled ‘Soil Health: Managing the Biological Com-
function, within natural or managed ecosystem bound- ponent of Soil Quality’ was held as part of the
aries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, main- joint annual meeting of the Entomological Society
tain or enhance water and air quality, and support hu- of America (ESA) and the American Phytopathol-
man health and habitation’ (Karlen et al., 1997). In ogy Society (APS) which convened in Las Vegas,
discussion of the ambiguity of environmental terms Nevada in November 1998. The goals of the con-
and the need to standardize their meanings, Johnson ference were to increase awareness within the ESA
et al. (1997) defined soil quality as ‘a measure of the and APS of the utility of soil organisms as indica-
condition of soil relative to the requirements of one or tors of soil quality, and to permit researchers from
more biological species and/or to any human purpose’. diverse disciplines to integrate results from multiple
The term ‘soil health’ is preferred by some (for a taxa of soil organisms. The overarching objective was
discussion see Doran et al., 1996; Doran and Safley, to help ‘translate science into practice’ by providing
1997) because it portrays soil as a living, dynamic a forum for researchers and extension workers to
system whose functions are mediated by a diversity discuss farmer-participatory programs for managing
of living organisms that require management and con- soil quality. The papers published in this issue were
servation. Soil health, biodiversity, and soil resilience presented in abbreviated form during the conference.
are severely limited in extreme environments and are
more sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance (Freck-
man and Virginia, 1997). The terms soil quality and 2. Soil quality: indicator of sustainable land
soil health will be used synonymously throughout this management
paper. However use of the term soil quality will gen-
erally be associated with a soils’ fitness for a specific Developing sustainable land management systems
use and the term soil health used in a broader sense to is complicated by the need to consider their utility
indicate the capacity of soil to function as a vital liv- to humans, their efficiency of resource use, and their
ing system to sustain biological productivity, promote ability to maintain a balance with the environment that
environmental quality, and maintain plant and animal is favorable both to humans and most other species
health. In this sense soil health is synonymous with (Harwood, 1990). In particular, we are challenged to
sustainability. The quality of a soil includes an inher- develop agricultural management systems that bal-
ent component, determined by the soil’s physical and ance the needs for production of food and fiber with
chemical properties within the constraints set by cli- those for maintenance of the environment. More sim-
mate and ecosystem. In addition, soil quality includes ply stated by Tom Franzen, a midwestern farmer in the
a component affected by management and land-use USA, “a sustainable agriculture — sustains the peo-
decisions. Unfortunately, past management of agricul- ple and preserves the land.” Soil quality is conceptu-
ture and other ecosystems has substantially degraded alized as the major linkage between the strategies for
and reduced the quality of many soils throughout the agricultural conservation management practices and
world (Saunders, 1992; Oldeman, 1994). In particular, achievement of the major goals of sustainable agricul-
mechanical cultivation and the continuous production ture (Parr et al., 1992; Acton and Gregorich, 1995). In
of row crops has resulted in physical loss of soil, dis- short, the assessment of soil quality or health, and di-
placement through erosion, and large decreases in soil rection of change with time, is the primary indicator
organic matter content with a concomitant release of of sustainable land management (Karlen et al., 1997).
 J.W. Doran, M.R. Zeiss / Applied Soil Ecology 15 (2000) 3–11 5

Although soil’s contribution to plant productivity is land-use policies (Granatstein and Bezdicek, 1992).
widely recognized, soil condition also impacts water Use of one given approach for assessing or indexing
and air quality. The quality of surface and sub-surface soil quality is fraught with complexity and precludes
water has been jeopardized in many parts of the world its practical or meaningful use by land managers or
by intensive land management practices and the con- policy makers (Harris et al., 1996). However, the use
sequent imbalance of C, N, and water cycling in soil. of simple indicators of soil quality and health which
Agriculture is considered the most widespread con- have meaning to farmers and other land managers will
tributor to nonpoint source water pollution in the USA likely be the most fruitful means of linking science
(National Research Council, 1993). The major water with practice in assessing the sustainability of man-
contaminant in North America and Europe is nitrate agement practices (Romig et al., 1995, 1996).
nitrogen, the principal sources of which are conver-
sion of unmanaged land to intensive agriculture, an-
imal manures, atmospheric deposition, and commer- 3. Use of soil organisms as indicators of soil
cial fertilizers. Human alterations of the nitrogen cy- quality and health
cle have almost doubled the rate of nitrogen input to
terrestrial ecosystems over the past 30 years resulting Criteria for indicators of soil quality and health re-
in large increases in the transfer of nitrogen from land late mainly to their utility in defining ecosystem pro-
to the atmosphere and to rivers, estuarines, and coastal cesses and integrating physical, chemical, and biolog-
oceans (Vitousek et al., 1997). Soil management prac- ical properties, their sensitivity to management and
tices such as tillage, cropping patterns, and pesticide climatic variations, and their accessibility and utility
and fertilizer use influence water quality. In addition, to agricultural specialists, producers, conservationists,
these management practices can influence atmospheric and policy makers (Doran and Parkin, 1996). As dis-
quality through changes in the soil’s capacity to pro- cussed below, measurements of soil organisms meet
duce or consume important atmospheric gases such many (though not all) of the criteria for useful indi-
as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane (Rol- cators of sustainable land management. For this rea-
ston et al., 1993; Mosier, 1998). The present threat of son, soil organisms (including their abundance, diver-
global climate change and ozone depletion, through sity, food web structure, and community stability; see
elevated levels of greenhouse gases and altered hydro- Brussaard et al., 1997) were the focus of the confer-
logical cycles, necessitates a better understanding of ence published in this issue. Most of the subsequent
the influence of land management on soil processes papers in this issue address the questions of which of
(Bengtsson, 1998). In summary, the quality and health the presently known organisms and ecological param-
of soil determine agricultural sustainability (Papen- eters are most useful as indicators. But any indicator
dick and Parr, 1992; Acton and Gregorich, 1995), en- of soil health or soil quality should meet the following
vironmental quality (Pierzynski et al., 1994), and as a five criteria.
consequence of both, plant, animal, and human health
(Haberern, 1992; Harris et al., 1996). 3.1. Sensitivity to variations in management
Scientists make a significant contribution to sustain-
able land management by translating scientific knowl- To be useful as an indicator of the sustainability of
edge and information on soil function into practical land management practices, a soil parameter must re-
tools and approaches by which land managers can as- spond to changes in management sensitively. Specif-
sess the sustainability of their management practices ically, ‘the indicators should be sensitive enough
(Dumanski et al., 1992; Bouma, 1997). Specifically, to reflect the influence of management and climate
assessment of soil quality/health is needed to identify on long-term changes in soil quality but not be so
problem production areas, make realistic estimates of sensitive as to be influenced by short-term weather
food production, monitor changes in sustainability and patterns’ (Doran and Parkin, 1996). Soil organisms
environmental quality as related to agricultural man- meet this criterion, because they respond sensitively
agement, and to assist government agencies in for- to anthropogenic disturbance (Pankhurst et al., 1997;
mulating and evaluating sustainable agricultural and Wolters and Schaefer, 1994). Numerous additional
6 J.W. Doran, M.R. Zeiss / Applied Soil Ecology 15 (2000) 3–11

examples can be found in Appl. Soil Ecol. 9 (1998) are invaluable indicators because they are well cor-
306–428, which is a special issue dedicated to ‘Soil related with multiple soil functions (Anderson, 1988;
Organisms and Soil Resource Management’. Fur- Doran et al., 1996). Nonetheless, if plant productiv-
ther, both Rosemeyer and Abawi (this issue) present ity or health are measured and found to be lower than
management-induced changes in abundance and di- desired, it is not obvious what remedial action is re-
versity of bacteria, fungi, and nematodes. quired. Therefore, indicators are needed that help land
managers understand the chain of cause and effect that
3.2. Well correlated with beneficial soil functions links land management decisions to ultimate produc-
tivity and health of plants and animals. Soil organisms
Soil health is worth quantifying because soils and meet this criterion, because they play a direct role in
their biota provide ecosystems functions that benefit many ecosystem processes including conversion of nu-
humans. These ecosystem services can be of consid- trients into forms available to plants (Anderson, 1988;
erable value (Costanza et al., 1997) and include soil Drinkwater et al., 1996) and suppression of noxious or-
functions of storing and releasing water, decompos- ganisms (Bongers and Bongers, 1998; Oyarzun et al.,
ing plant and animal residues, transforming and recy- 1998). Further, by affecting soil structure, soil organ-
cling nutrients, sequestering and detoxifying organic isms play a critical indirect role in processes such as
toxicants, and promoting plant health by suppressing water infiltration (Anderson, 1995).
plant-pathogenic microbes and phytophagous fauna. It
is often possible and desirable to measure soil function 3.4. Comprehensible and useful to land managers
directly. For example, in participatory research with
US farmers, decomposition rate was directly measured The ultimate determinant of soil quality and health
by periodically examining samples of buried paper is the farm owner or operator, rancher, forester, golf
(Drinkwater and Wander, this issue). In contrast, di- course superintendant, conservationists, etc. who ac-
rect measurements of some soil functions may be too tually manage the land. Thus, the land manager is
expensive (for example, direct measurements of nu- the ultimate judge of which indicators of soil qual-
trient transformations) or require observations across ity are worth measuring. Considerable thought and
too much time (for example, the capacity of a soil to creativity are required to develop measurements of
supply water for plant growth during a drought may soil organisms that are comprehensible and useful to
be observable only during rare drought years). In such land managers. Both in the US (Drinkwater and Wan-
cases, rather than measuring the soil function directly, der, this issue) and Ecuador (Carroll et al., this is-
it may be preferable to measure surrogates or prox- sue), farmer-participatory programs for promoting soil
ies that are well correlated with the soil function. Soil health have successfully included earthworm abun-
organisms meet this criterion, because the abundance dance as an indicator. In addition, measurements of
and diversity of soil organisms often are well corre- the abundance and diversity of nematodes (Bongers
lated with many beneficial soil functions (Pankhurst and Bongers, 1998), mites (Behan-Pelletier, this is-
et al., 1997). However, care is needed in selecting sue) and bacteria (Nelson and van Bruggen, this issue)
which organism or which community parameter to use could provide a wealth of information on soil func-
as a proxy for soil function (Bengtsson, 1998). tions and processes but likely requires too much spe-
cialized training for land managers. It remains an open
3.3. Useful for elucidating ecosystem processes question whether these potentially valuable biological
indicators can be made accessible to land managers.
To aid farmers, ranchers, conservationists, foresters,
and other land managers in selecting appropriate in- 3.5. Easy and inexpensive to measure
terventions, an indicator of soil quality must do more
than merely predicting whether a soil will provide a Because the ultimate determinant of soil quality
beneficial function (Section 3.2). The indicator should and health is the land manager, indicators of soil
also elucidate why the soil will or will not function quality and sustainability should be both accessible
as desired. For example, plant productivity and health to them and economic in terms of both time and
 J.W. Doran, M.R. Zeiss / Applied Soil Ecology 15 (2000) 3–11 7

money. This argues against the use of species richness sustainable management that included corresponding
(‘biodiversity’) as an indicator, because quantify- indicators of soil quality and health that are measur-
ing species richness requires substantial knowledge able by and accessible to producers (Table 1). Note
of taxonomy and can be extremely time consum- that soil organic matter serves as a primary indicator
ing and costly. However, it may be possible to de- of soil quality and health for both scientists and farm-
velop measures of functional diversity measurable by ers (Romig et al., 1995).
non-taxonomists (Bengtsson, 1998). In general, quan- Strategies for sustainable management, such as
tifying soil organisms neither is inherently expensive those shown in Table 1, maximize the benefits of nat-
nor requires much specialized equipment (e.g. Blair ural cycles, reduce dependence on non-renewable re-
et al., 1996; Pankhurst et al., 1997). However, research sources, and help producers identify long-term goals
is needed to develop sampling protocols (Dick et al., for sustainability that also meet short-term needs for
1996) compatible with the time constraints imposed production. However, successful development and
by the normally hectic and unpredictable schedules implementation of standards for assessment of soil
of land managers. health and sustainability can only be accomplished
In summary, measurements of soil organisms are in partnership with agricultural producers, who are
sensitive to anthropogenic perturbations, are well cor- the primary stewards of the land. Economic survival
related with beneficial soil functions, and are excellent and viability are the primary goals of land managers,
teaching tools because they elucidate ecosystem pro- and while most appreciate the need for environmental
cesses. However, it is a challenge to develop measure- conservation, the simple fact remains that “it’s hard
ments of soil organisms that are meaningful to land to be green when you’re in the red” (Ann Hamblin,
managers, and that can be quantified within the time Ballarat, Australia, April 1996).
and skills available to land managers. Thus, as for any Although much remains to be done, useful models
indicator, the utility of quantifying soil organisms as exist for translating soil science into practice. For
part of a program for promoting soil quality and health example, Gomez et al. (1996) provide a unique frame-
will depend on the objectives of the specific program. work for determining the sustainability of hill country
agriculture in the Philippines. It employs indicators
that consider both the satisfaction of farmer needs
4. Translating science into practice (i.e. productivity, profitability, stability, and viability)
and those needed for conservation of soil and water
In the US, the Soil Science Society of America has resources. On a given farm, indicators were deemed to
taken a lead role in defining and promoting soil qual- be at a sustainable level if they exceeded a designated
ity and health. As a step towards defining sustain- threshold level. Specifically, the threshold values for
able agricultural management practices, Doran et al. sustainability were identified relative to the average lo-
(1994a) stressed the importance of holistic manage- cal conditions for crop yield, profit, risk of crop failure,
ment approaches that optimize the multiple functions soil depth, percent soil cover, and soil organic matter
of soil, conserve soil resources, and support strategies content. This conceptual framework for assessment
for promoting soil quality and health. They initially of sustainability could be expanded to include other
proposed use of a basic set of indicators to assess needs of society and environmental conservation as
soil quality and health in various agricultural man- illustrated in Table 2. In particular, adding a category
agement systems. However, while many of these key for balancing input and output of energy and monetary
indicators are extremely useful to specialists (i.e. re- costs would better assess the short and long-term sus-
searchers, consultants, extension staff, and conserva- tainability of management and the value of greater re-
tionists), many of them are beyond the expertise of the liance on renewable resources in enhancing ecological
producer to measure (Hamblin, 1991). Also, the mere and environmental resources. Also, expanding the list
measurement of soil quality and health does noth- of resource conservation variables to include leach-
ing to improve the sustainability of the system under able salts (especially NO3 ), measured as soil electrical
which the soil is managed. In response to this dilemma, conductivity at time of fertilization and after harvest,
Doran et al. (1996) presented strategies for ensuring would permit land managers to better quantify the
8 J.W. Doran, M.R. Zeiss / Applied Soil Ecology 15 (2000) 3–11

Table 1
Strategies for sustainable agricultural management and proposed indicators of crop performance and soil and environmental healtha
Sustainability strategy Indicators for producers

Conserve soil organic matter through

Maintaining soil C & N levels by reducing tillage Direction/change in organic matter levels with time (visual
Recycling plant and animal manures or remote sensing by color or chemical analysis)
And/or increasing plant diversity, Specific OM potential for climate, soil, and vegetation
where C inputs≥C outputs Soil water storage
Minimize soil erosion through
Conservation tillage Visual (gullies, rills, dust, etc.)
Increased protective cover (residue, Surface soil properties (topsoil depth, organic matter
stable aggregates, cover crops, green fallow) content/texture, water infiltration, runoff, ponding, cover %)
Balance production and environment through
Conservation and integrated management systems Crop characteristics (visual or remote sensing of yield, color,
(optimizing tillage, residue, water, and chemical use) nutrient status, plant vigor, and rooting characteristics) Soil
Synchronizing available N and P levels with crop needs physical condition/compaction
during year Soil and water nitrate levels
Amount and toxicity of pesticides used
Better use of renewable resources through
Relying less on fossil fuels and petrochemicals Input/output ratios of costs, energy, and
More on renewable resources and biodiversity renewable/non-renewable resources
(crop rotations, legumes, manures, IPM, etc.) Leaching losses/soil acidification
Crop characteristics (as listed above)
Soil and water nitrate levels
a Modified from Doran et al. (1996).

impact of agricultural practices on water quality of soil quality”. The authors share the cotton grower’s
(Doran, 1997; Doran et al., 1998). In addition, Carroll belief that the true goal is sustainable management of
et al. (this issue) and Drinkwater and Wander (this agricultural systems. Soil quality indicators in general,
issue) provide other examples of successful, partici- and biological indicators in particular, are merely a
patory programs to quantify and enhance soil quality. means towards that end.
The theme of a recent conference in Australia, ‘Soil
quality is in the hands of the land manager’ (Advances
in Soil Quality: Science, Practice, and Policy, Uni- 5. Resources for future work on soil health
versity of Ballarat, April 1996), should serve as the
watchword for future efforts. A cotton grower at this A partial listing of groups and published resources
conference expressed his frustration with the direc- on soil quality and health as related to sustainable
tion that the soil quality indicators proposed by re- management are included here. Canadian contribu-
searchers were taking: “I need help from scientists tions, which were among the first to be active in this
more with tools for management than with indicators area, are well reflected in the two publications (see

Table 2
Template of proposed indicators for measuring the sustainability of agricultural systems at the farm levela
Farmer/society needs (acceptable) Resource/environmental conservation (adequate/acceptable)
Yields Soil organic matter
Profits Topsoil depth
Risk/stability Soil protective cover (%)
Input/output ratio (energy and costs) Leachable salts (NO3 ) (soil electrical conductivity)
a Taken from Gomez et al. (1996).
 J.W. Doran, M.R. Zeiss / Applied Soil Ecology 15 (2000) 3–11 9

Acton and Gregorich, 1995; Gregorich and Carter, (1991). Further details can be obtained by contacting
1997). In the USA, the Soil Science Society of Amer- Dr. Richard Wellings (Secretary, ISO/TC 190, NNI,
ica has a soil quality working group within Division P.O. Box 5059, 2600 GT Delft, The Netherlands; fax:
S-3 (Soil Biology and Biochemistry) which includes +31-15-2690-190).
over 100 members from the US and other countries. Summary findings of an international workshop
This group was a major supporter of two important on ‘Soil health as an indicator of sustainable land
references on soil quality (see Doran et al., 1994b; management’ which was held on 24–25 June 1999 in
Blair et al., 1996; Dick et al., 1996; Doran and Parkin, Athens, Greece, are reported by Doran and Stama-
1996; Drinkwater et al., 1996; Gomez et al., 1996; tiadis (1999). The proceedings of this workshop are
Harris et al., 1996; Romig et al., 1996). The home presently scheduled for publication as a special issue
page address for the S-3 Soil Quality Working Group of Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment in 2001.
is (http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/pr s3sm/soilqlty/) where
a membership list, meeting minutes, seminars and
events, and links to other groups such as the Biore- Acknowledgements
mediation and Instruction Working Groups, the
USDA-NRCS Soil Quality Institute, and the Interna- Special thanks to George Abawi, co-organizer of
tional Soil Quality Network can be found. the ESA/APS soil health conference, for his enthu-
Other emphases on soil health and soil organisms siasm and logistical support. We gratefully acknowl-
have come from Doran et al. (1994a), Pankhurst et al. edge the Soil Quality Institute (of the US Department
(1997), Soil Ecology Society, and the soil ecology sec- of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
tion of the Ecological Society of America. Also worthy vice) and the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alterna-
of recognition are the international efforts of individual tive Agriculture for their financial support of the con-
scientists in the GCTE (Global Change and Terrestrial ference. Thanks also to Doug Kleine (of the ESA) and
Ecology) and the Scientific Committee on Problems Mary Barbercheck (chair of the Program Committee
of the Environment (SCOPE) for which several work- for the annual meeting) for their assiduous adminis-
shops have recently identified a number of gaps in be- trative efforts in support of the conference. Finally,
lowsurface knowledge (see http://www.nrel.colostate. our sincere thanks to all the conference participants
edu/soil/scope.html). A Soil Biodiversity and Ecosys- for contributing their knowledge, time, and resources.
tem Functioning page is also available at the Natural
Resources Ecology Lab in Fort Collins, Colorado (see
http://www.nrel.colostate. edu/soil/home.html). References
The National Academy of Sciences has just ap-
proved a US National Committee on Soil Science, Acton, D.F., Gregorich, L.J., 1995. The Health of Our
which raises the visibility of soils in international are- Soils: Toward Sustainable Agriculture in Canada. Agriculture
Agri-Food Canada, CDR Unit, Ottawa.
nas. This committee will now represent soil biologists
Anderson, J., 1995. Soil organisms as engineers: microsite
and other soil scientists in contributing to interna- modulation of macroscale processes. In: Jones, C.G., Lawton,
tional decisions on biodiversity loss, invasive species J.H. (Eds.), Linking Species and Ecosystems. Chapman & Hall,
and global change, particularly in major scientific con- London, pp. 94–106.
tributors to international policy on global sustainabil- Anderson, J.M., 1988. The role of soil fauna in agricultural
systems. In: Wilon, J.R. (Ed.), Advances in Nitrogen Cycling
ity such as the International Congress of Scientific
in Agricultural Ecosystems. CAB International, Wallingford,
Unions (ICSU) (Personal communication from Diana pp. 89–113.
Wall, Director of the Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Bengtsson, J., 1998. Which species? What kind of diversity? Which
20 October 1998). The International Standardisation ecosystem function? Some problems in studies of relations
Organisation (ISO) established in 1985, a Technical between biodiversity and ecosystem function. Appl. Soil. Ecol.
10, 191–199.
Committee (ISO/TC 190) to consider the develop-
Blair, J.M., Bohlen, P.J., Freckman, D.W., 1996. Soil invertebrates
ment of methodologies for monitoring the quality of as indicators of soil quality. In: Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J. (Eds.),
soil. The scope of this Technical Committee and its Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of
work program are outlined by Hortensius and Nortcliff America, Special Publication 49, Madison, WI, pp. 273–291.
10 J.W. Doran, M.R. Zeiss / Applied Soil Ecology 15 (2000) 3–11

Bongers, T., Bongers, M., 1998. Functional diversity of nematodes. Freckman, D.W., Virginia, R.A., 1997. Low-diversity Antarctic
Appl. Soil Ecol. 10, 239–252. soil nematode communities: distribution and response to
Bouma, J., 1997. Soil environmental quality: a European disturbance. Ecology 78, 363–369.
perspective. J. Environ. Qual. 26, 26–31. Glanz, J.T., 1995. Saving Our Soil: Solutions for Sustaining Earth’s
Brussaard et al., 1997. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in Vital Resource. Johnson Books, Boulder, CO, USA.
soil. Ambio 26, 563–570. Gomez, A.A., Swete Kelly, D.E., Seyers, J.K., Coughlan, K.J.,
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., 1996. Measuring sustainability of agricultural systems at the
Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, farm level. In: Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J. (Eds.), Methods for
J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America,
of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature Special Publication 49, Madison, WI, pp. 401–410.
387, 253–259. Granatstein, D., Bezdicek, D.F., 1992. The need for a soil quality
Dick, R.P., Thomas, D.R., Halvorson, J.J., 1996. Standardized index: local and regional perspectives. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7,
methods, sampling, and sample pretreatment. In: Doran, J.W., 12–16.
Jones, A.J. (Eds.), Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Gregorich, E.G., Carter, M.R. (Eds.), 1997. Soil Quality for
Science Society of America, Special Publication 49, Madison, Crop Production and Ecosystem Health. Developments in Soil
WI, pp. 107–121. Science 25, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Doran, J.W., 1997. Soil quality and sustainability. In: Proceedings Haberern, J., 1992. Viewpoint: a soil health index. J. Soil Water
of the XXVI Brazilian Congress of Soil Science, Rio de Janeiro, Conserv. 47, 6.
Brazil, 20–26 July 1997. Hamblin, A., 1991. Environmental indicators for sustainable
Doran, J.W., Parkin, T.B., 1996. Quantitative indicators of soil
agriculture. Report of a national workshop. Publ. LWRRDC
quality: a minimum data set. In: Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J. (Eds.),
and GRDC, 96 pp.
Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of
Harris, R.F., Karlen, D.L., Mulla, D.J., 1996. A conceptual
America, Special Publication 49, Madison, WI, pp. 25–37.
framework for assessment and management of soil quality
Doran, J.W., Safley, M., 1997. Defining and assessing soil health
and health. In: Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J. (Eds.), Methods for
and sustainable productivity. In: Pankhurst, C., Doube, B.M.,
Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America,
Gupta, V.V.S.R. (Eds.), Biological Indicators of Soil Health.
Special Publication 49, Madison, WI, pp. 61–82.
CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp. 1–28.
Harwood, R.R., 1990. A history of sustainable agriculture. In:
Doran, J.W., Stamatiadis, S. 1999. Soil health as an Indicator
Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., House,
of Sustainable Land Management: Summary Findings of an
G. (Eds.), Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water
International Workshop. Agronomy Abstracts, Salt Lake City,
Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, USA, pp. 3–19.
Utah meeting, 31 October–4 November 1999.
Doran, J.W., Liebig, M.A., Santana, D.P., 1998. Soil health Hortensius, D., Nortcliff, S., 1991. International standardization
and global sustainability. In: Transactions of the 16th World of soil quality measurement procedures for the purpose of soil
Congress of Soil Science. Montepellier, France, 20–26 August protection. Soil Use Manage. 7, 163–166.
1998. Houghton, R.A., Hobbie, J.E., Melillo, J.M., Moore, B., Peterson,
Doran, J.W., Sarrantonio, M., Janke, R., 1994a. Strategies to B.J., Shaver, G.R., Woodwell, G.M., 1983. Changes in the
promote soil quality and soil health. In: Pankhurst, C.E., carbon content of terrestrial biota and soils between 1860 and
Doube, B.M., Gupta, V.V.S.R., Grace, P.R. (Eds.), Soil Biota: 1980: a net release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Ecol. Monog.
Management in Sustainable Farming Systems. CSIRO, Victoria, 53, 235–262.
Australia, pp. 230–237. Johnson, D.L., Ambrose, S.H., Bassett, T.J., Bowen, M.L.,
Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Crummey, D.E., Isaacson, J.S., Johnson, D.N., Lamb, P., Saul,
1994b. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. M., Winter-Nelson, A.E., 1997. Meanings of environmental
Soil Science Society of America, Special Publication 35, terms. J. Environ. Qual. 26, 581–589.
Madison, WI. Karlen, D.L., Mausbach, M.J., Doran, J.W., Cline, R.G., Harris,
Doran, J.W., Sarrantonio, M., Liebig, M., 1996. Soil health and R.F., Schuman, G.E., 1997. Soil quality: a concept, definition,
sustainability. In: Sparks, D.L. (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy, and framework for evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 4–10.
Vol. 56. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 1–54. Lal, R., 1998. Basic concepts and global issues: soil quality and
Drinkwater, L.E., Cambardella, C.A., Reeder, J.D., Rice, C.W., agricultural sustainability. In: Lal, R (Ed.), Soil Quality and
1996. Potentially mineralizable nitrogen as an indicator of Agricultural Sustainability. Ann Arbor Science, Chelsea, MI,
biologically active soil nitrogen. In: Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J. USA, pp. 3–12.
(Eds.), Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society Mosier, A.R., 1998. Soil processes and global change. Biol. Fertil.
of America, Special Publication 49, Madison, WI, pp. 217–229. Soils 27, 221–229.
Dumanski, J., Eswaran, H., Latham, M., 1992. A proposal for National Research Council, 1993. Soil and Water Quality: An
an international framework for evaluating sustainable land Agenda for Agriculture. Committee on Long-Range Soil and
management. In: Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management Water Conservation, Board of Agriculture, National Research
in the Developing World. Vol. 2: Technical Papers. International Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Board for Soil Research and Management, Bangkok, Thailand, Oldeman, L.R., 1994. The global extent of soil degradation.
1991. IBSRAM Proceeding No. 12 (2). In: Greenland, D.J., Szabolcs, I. (Eds.), Soil Resilience and
 J.W. Doran, M.R. Zeiss / Applied Soil Ecology 15 (2000) 3–11 11

Sustainable Land Use. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, Rolston, D.E., Harper, L.A., Mosier, A.R., Duxbury, J.M., 1993.
UK, pp. 99–118. Agricultural Ecosystem Effects on Trace Gases and Global
Oyarzun, P.J., Gerlagh, M., Zadoks, J.C., 1998. Factors associated Climate Change. American Society of Agronomy, Special
with soil receptivity to some fungal root rot pathogens of peas. Publication 55, Madison, WI, USA.
Appl. Soil Ecol. 10, 151–169. Romig, D.E., Garlynd, M.J., Harris, R.F., 1996. Farmer-based
Pankhurst, C., Doube, B.M., Gupta, V.V.S.R. (Eds.), 1997. assessment of soil quality: A soil health scorecard. In: Doran,
Biological Indicators of Soil Health. CAB International, J.W., Jones, A.J. (Eds.), Methods for Assessing Soil Quality.
Wallingford. Soil Science Society of America, Special Publication 49,
Papendick, R.I., Parr, J., 1992. Soil quality — the key to a Madison, WI, pp. 39–60.
sustainable agriculture. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7, 2–3. Romig, D.E., Garlynd, M.J., Harris, R.F., McSweeney, K., 1995.
Parr, J.F., Papendick, R.I., Hornick, S.B., Meyer, R.E., 1992. Soil How farmers assess soil health and quality (Special Issue on
quality: attributes and relationship to alternative and sustainable Soil Quality). J. Soil Water Conserv. 50, 229–236.
agriculture. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7, 5–11. Saunders, D.W., 1992. International activities in assessing and
Pierzynski, G.M., Sims, J.T., Vance, G., 1994. Soils and monitoring soil degradation (Special Issue on Soil Quality).
Environmental Quality. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Am. J. Alter. Agric. 7, 17–24.
Raton, FL, USA. Vitousek, P.M., Aber, J.D., Howarth, R.W., Likens, G.E., Matson,
Power, J.F. 1996. Requirements for a sustainable agriculture P.A., Schindler, D.W., Schlesinger, W.H., Tilman, D.G., 1997.
for the next generation. In: Nath, B., Lang, I., Mesaros, Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and
E., Robinson, J.P., Hens, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7, 737–750.
International Conference on Environmental Pollution, Vol. Wolters, V., Schaefer, M., 1994. Effects of acid deposition on
1, Budapest, Hungary, 15–19 April 1996. European Centre soil organisms and decomposition processes. In: Benckiser, G.
for Pollution Research, University of London, London, UK, (Ed.), Effects of Acid Rain on Forest Processes. Wiley, New
pp. 92–98. York, pp. 83–127.